JUDGMENT : Jobin Sebastian, J. The petitioner is the father of Sanjith Ali, ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 31.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 21.04.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention. 2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, the 5th respondent, on 20.11.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu was involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order of detention, and the details of the said cases are given below:- Sl. No. Crime No. Police Station Crime Date Offences involved under Sections Present status of case 1 583/2024 Sultan Bathery Police Station 08.08.2024 U /s. 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act Under Investigation 2 617/2024 Panniyankara Police Station 31.08.2024 U /s. 22(c) of NDPS Act Under Investigation 3. We heard Smt. Celine Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of detention was passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay, both in mooting the proposal and in passing the order of detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, though the impugned order of detention was passed while the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, in the impugned order, nowhere it is mentioned that there is a possibility of the detenu being released on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, though the impugned order of detention was passed while the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, in the impugned order, nowhere it is mentioned that there is a possibility of the detenu being released on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another , [ 1991 (1) SCC 128 ], the learned counsel contended that in cases wherein the detenu is in judicial custody, in connection with the last prejudicial activity, a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that, even in cases wherein the person is in judicial custody, a detention order can be validly passed if the satisfaction of the authority is properly adverted to in the order. According to the Government Pleader, it was after being aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, Ext.P1 detention order was passed. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader would submit that, in Ext. P1 order itself, it is mentioned that there is a chance that the detenu will approach courts to get bail, and even if he is released on bail with conditions, he may likely to violate those conditions, and there is a high propensity that the respondent will involve in drug peddling activities in the future. According to the Government pleader, in the impugned order, as there is a specific recital in the above regard, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the triple test mentioned in Kamarunissa’s case (cited supra) is not satisfied. The learned Government Pleader further urged that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext. P1 order of detention, and therefore, the contention that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped will not be sustained. 6. The learned Government Pleader further urged that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext. P1 order of detention, and therefore, the contention that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped will not be sustained. 6. Before considering the contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, it is to be noted that, out of the two cases considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.617/2024 of Panniyankara Police Station. In the said case, the detenu was allegedly caught red-handed with 12.16 grams of MDMA on 30.08.2024. However, the records reveal that, in the FSL examination, the contraband seized is not MDMA but Methamphetamine. Accordingly, the detenu is now facing allegation under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act for possessing intermediate quantity of Methamphetamine instead of Section 22(C) of NDPS Act. The detenu was released on bail in the said case on 21.11.2024. It was on 20.11.2024, while the detenu was in judicial custody, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under PITNDPS Act was mooted by the sponsoring authority. As the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the short delay in mooting the proposal is only justifiable as there was no basis for any apprehension regarding repetition of any criminal activities by the detenu while in jail. Likewise, the proposal was forwarded by the sponsoring authority before the release of the detenu from jail. Moreover, without much delay from the date of the proposal, Ext.P1 order of detention was also passed. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the order, and the same resulted in snapping of the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention will not be sustained. 7. A perusal of the records further reveals that it was on 05.09.2024, while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, his arrest was recorded in the last but one case registered against him as crime No.583/2024 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station. It was on 17.03.2025, the detenu got bail in the last but one case. It was on 17.03.2025, the detenu got bail in the last but one case. Therefore, it is gatherable that it was while the detenu was in jail in connection with the last but one case registered against him, Ext. P1 order of detention was passed. 8. Undisputedly, a detention order can validly be passed even when the detenu is in judicial custody in connection with a case registered against him. There is no law that precludes the competent authority from passing a detention order against a person who is under judicial custody. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a detention order was passed against a person who is under judicial custody, the authority who passed the said order should be cognizant of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody while passing such an order. In the case at hand, the fact that the detenu is in judicial custody in connection with crime No. 583/2024 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, the last but one case, is specifically adverted to in the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authority who passed the order was unaware of the custody of the detenu in connection with the said case, and the counsel for the petitioner also does not have such a contention. 9. While coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in cases where the detenu is in judicial custody, detention order can validly be passed only on the satisfaction of the triple test laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa (supra), it is to be noted that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as noted below: “Even in the case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable materials placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail and (b) that on being so released he would in probability indulged in prejudicial activity and (3) if it is essential to detain him to prevent him from doing so. If the authority passes an order after recording his satisfaction in this regard such an order would be valid.” A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veeramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu [ 1994 (2) SCC 337 ] and in Union of India v. Paul Manickam [ 2003 (8) SCC 342 ]. 10. Keeping in mind the proposition of law laid down in Kamarunissa ’s case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while coming to facts in the present case, it can be seen that in Ext.P1 order, it is specifically mentioned that the detenu submitted a bail application before the Special Judge NDPS Act cases, Kalpetta, and the same was dismissed on 07.12.2024. Similarly, it is mentioned that there is a chance that the detenu will approach other court to get bail and even if he is released on bail with conditions, he may likely to violate those conditions and there is high propensity that the detenu will indulge in drug peddling activities in the future and therefore, it is absolutely imperative to detain him to prevent him from engaging in such activities in the event of getting bail. However, in the impugned order, it is nowhere stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail, and there are materials on record to enter on such a satisfaction. On the other hand, what is mentioned in the impugned order is that there is a chance that the detenu will approach other courts to get bail. There is not even a statement to the effect that there is a likelihood of getting bail. Though the detaining authority was aware that the detenu was in judicial custody, there is no mention of the awareness of authority, on the basis of reliable materials, that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail. Therefore, a statement in the impugned order that the detenu will approach other courts seeking bail is not sufficient to establish that the competent authority has reason to believe that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail. If there were cogent materials to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu might be released on bail, then the same should have been indicated in the order. If there were cogent materials to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu might be released on bail, then the same should have been indicated in the order. In the absence of the same, we have no hesitation in holding that the objective as well as the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority to pass the impugned order of detention is vitiated. 11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Sanjith Ali, forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith.