Thiruvananthapuram: In the first case of preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, 1988, in the state, a Kottayam native was placed in preventive detention by a screening committee, chaired by the law secretary, based on charges submitted by the excise department related to drug-related crimes . The committee has decided to detain Ashkar Ashraf of Erumeli under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act , concluding that it is necessary to keep him in custody to prevent his involvement in the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Ashraf, who is currently in judicial custody and on trial for a drug-related case, has been transferred to the Central Prison in Thiruvananthapuram.
This move follows the requirement that preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act must be served in central prisons within the state. He can be held in detention for up to one year, with the possibility of an additional one-year extension if the committee deems it necessary. This marks the first instance in which the excise department has been able to detain an individual for drug-related cases, similar to the preventive detention used by the police under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (Kaapa).
Ashraf and his accomplice were initially arrested in 2020 while transporting 1.117kg of ganja on a bike from Vyttila, Ernakulam, a case currently under trial in the sessions court, Ernakulam. Ashraf was arrested on May 1 of last year and remains in judicial custody.
In the second case, he was found in possession of 96.94gm of methamphetamine and 0.1558gm of LSD stamps.
The proposal for preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act was submitted to the govt by the deputy excise commissioner of Kottayam. After an examination of the report, the govt forwarded the request to the screening committee, which was established for this purpose and is chaired by the law secretary, on June 14 of this year. In the report, the excise deputy commissioner, acting as the sponsoring authority, argued that the accused, who had been granted bail under stringent conditions in the first case, violated those conditions and became involved in another similar offence.
“Hence the sponsoring authority has pointed out that the accused is a habitual offender who gives minimal respect to the bail conditions...
As there is objective and subjective satisfaction, a detention order has to be issued against the defendant under the Act for effective prevention of further involvement in narcotic activities,” the committee said..
