Allowed

Khadeejathu Rabiya P.A v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2024WP(Crl.)/87/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu. The detention order based on possession of intermediate quantity of contraband under NDPS Act was quashed due to lack of materials proving the detenu was a threat to society or involved in sale. Court directed de-addiction treatment and released detenu.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order set aside. Detenu set at liberty forthwith. Order for de-addiction treatment passed.

Khadeejathu Rabiya P.A Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FRIDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(CRL.) NO. 87 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KHADEEJATHU RABIYA P.A AGED 36 YEARS W/O AHAMMED SHERIF P.A, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEAR MARTHOMA SCHOOL, MUTTATHODI GRAMAM, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671541

¶8

BY ADVS. M.H.HANIS P.M.JINIMOL T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR NANCY MOL P. ANANDHU P.C. NEETHU.G.NADH CIYA E.J.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671123

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KASARGODE, PIN - 671123

¶13

WP(CRL.) NO. 87 OF 2024

¶14

..2..

¶15

4 THE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 682026

¶16

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, PIN - 670004

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(CRL.) NO. 87 OF 2024

¶20

..3..

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶23

This habeas corpus petition is filed by the wife of the detenu.

¶24

The detenu is involved in three crimes. All crimes are registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS” for short). The first crime was committed in the year 2022 and the case was registered on 18.08.2022. Thereafter, he was again involved in two crimes under the NDPS Act on 10.02.2023 and 12.09.2023. All these cases were registered for possession of intermediate quantity of contraband. The sponsoring authority submitted a report on 25.10.2023. The detention authority passed the order on 24.11.2023. The detenu is only 40 years old. Though there is a delay of two months in passing the impugned detention order from the date of last prejudicial activity, that has been explained in the detention order.

¶25

The very objective of the detention order is to prevent commission of offences as the detenu continued to be a

¶26

WP(CRL.) NO. 87 OF 2024

¶27

..4..

¶28

threat to the society. In all these cases, we see that the detenu is alleged to have been caught red handed with the possession of the contraband. In the last crime registered against him, he was found to be in possession of contraband in a car. The police was of the view that the contraband found in the possession of the detenu was for sale and therefore, the detenu is a threat to the society.

¶29

We note the circumstances leading to the detention order. The enquiry did not lead to the conclusion that the contraband found in possession of the detenu was for sale. The conclusion in the detention order was based on the fact that he was in possession of intermediate quantity of contraband. The sponsoring authority also suspects that he is a link between the drug mafia and the persons engaged in the sale of drugs. However, nothing has been brought out to prove that he is a link and nothing is discernible from the overall circumstances that he will be a threat to the society. There must be materials on record to prove that the person detained would be a threat if he is not prevented therefrom through a detention order. We, in the absence of such materials, of the view that the

¶30

WP(CRL.) NO. 87 OF 2024

¶31

..5..

¶32

impugned order has to be set aside.

¶33

We passed an order on 22.01.2024, directing the Superintendent of the Central Prison to give the detenu de-addiction treatment. On the last occasion, we directed to produce the detenu before this Court. Today, the detenu is present before us. After interaction, we are of the view that he shall report before the District Legal Service Authority (DLSA), Kasaragod every Tuesday and the DLSA shall facilitate the detenu to undergo deaddiction treatment and file a report before this Court after one month.

¶34

The WP(Crl) is allowed accordingly. The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is set at liberty forthwith.

Sd/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE

bka/-

WP(CRL.) NO. 87 OF 2024

¶43

..6..

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 87/2024

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCKSGD/10415/2023/D-1(1) DATED 24.11.2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE DETENU Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 13.11.2023 IN CRIMINAL.M.C.NO. 201 OF 2023 THE COURT OF SESSION, KASARAGOD DIVISION

Khadeejathu Rabiya P.A v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadeejathu Rabiya P.A v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

University of Calicut Vs Ameen Rashid Kp

More Retail Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

S.Hariharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Neethu Sasi Vs Smt. Ishita Roy IAS

K.Muralidharan Vs the Special Tahsildar

K.Muralidharan Vs the Special Tahsildar