Important points:
" When an accused is enlarged on bail with conditions, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to consider whether the bail conditions are sufficient to prevent the detenu from continuing to indulge in anti-social activities.
" When the right to personal liberty of large number of citizens is at stake, the State will be forced to curtail liberty of individuals who are seen disturbing public order. Such curtailment by its very nature, cannot be based on trial and conviction. It has to be based on presumptive propensity of the individuals, drawn by authorities on subjective satisfaction. It is an executive imperative. The most important protective measure against deprivation of personal liberty extended to detenus, is application of mind by the detaining authorities before arriving at their subjective satisfaction. This protective measure being a substantial right, cannot be permitted to be watered down even eventually.

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. Wife of a detenu who is accused in as many as 14 crimes since 2015, seeks to quash Ext.P1 detention order and to produce the body and set the detenu at liberty, by issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

2. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent-District Police Chief submitted Ext.P5 report dated 17.12.2018, based on which her husband Suneer @ Noorudheen has been detained as per Ext.P1 detention order dated 15.01.2019 issued under Section 3(i) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAPA', for short) . The order was executed on 17.01.2019 and the grounds of detention was served on the detenu. Ext.P1 order has been passed without due and proper application of mind, contends the petitioner.

3. Ext.P1 detention order would reveal that the following are the 14 cases taken into account for treating the detenu as 'Known Rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(ii)(iii) of KAAPA:-

1. Crime No.707/2015 under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

2. Crime No.828/2015 under Sections 341, 506(i), 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

3. Crime No.996/2014 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii), 427 read with Section 34 IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

4. Crime No.93/2015 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

5. Crime No.1507/2015 under Sections 506(i), 308 IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

6. Crime No.924/2015 under Sections 452, 341, 323, 506(i) IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

7. Crime No.1587/2016 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

8. Crime No.52/2017 under Sections 376, 406, 420 IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

9. Crime No.753/2017 under Sections 323, 506(i) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

10. Crime No.754/2017 under Sections 451, 506(i) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

11. Crime No.377/2018 under Sections 354(A), 354(D) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

12. Crime No.605/2018 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

13. Crime No.962/2018 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC of Kunnamkulam Police Station.

14. Crime No.923/2015 under Section 353 IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

Among the aforestated, Crime No.923/2015 of Vadakkekkad Police Station is one suo motu registered by the police.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Vipin Narayan argued that an order under Section 3(i) of the KAAPA is preventive in nature. The order of preventive detention being subject only to subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and not being based even on minimal appreciation of evidence, thorough application of mind by the detaining authority shall precede. Application of mind by the detaining authority is a condicio sine quo non. However, it is the non-application of mind which is writ large and protruding in the detention order.

5. To drive home the point, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Crime No.52/2017 of Chavakkad Police Station was in respect of an incident occurred on 18.03.2016. This Court granted bail to the detenu in B.A. No.693/2017 on 06.02.2017 with the following conditions:-

“(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the lower court concerned.

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every first and third Saturdays for two months, or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(iii) He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he get himself involved in any other criminal case.

(iv) He shall surrender his passport before the lower court concerned or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

(v) He shall not leave the State of Kerala without the previous permission of the court of enquiry or trial court as the case may be.”

The third cond