The court upheld the detention order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that the authority's satisfaction regarding the detenu's potential for reoffending justified the detention despite the detenu being on bail.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

An order of detention dated 28.11.2024 passed under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity) against one Yasin Sajeer @ Yasin Sajar, S/o Avarankutty, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government vide order dated 31.01.2025 has confirmed the order, and the petitioner’s husband has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of detention. 2.

As revealed from the records, the proposal for the initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known goonda' as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) r/w 2(j) of the KAA(P) Act. For passing the order of detention, the authority reckoned 3 cases in which the detenu was involved. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.440/2024 of Shornur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. Mohammed Aslam P.A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority 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 in passing the impugned order after the alleged commission of the last prejudicial activity, and the said delay will snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention order. It was further contended that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order without seriously taking note of the fact that the detenu was already on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by the court while granting bail to the detenu was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and passed the impugned order in a hasty manner. The counsel further urged that, apart from the three cases considered by the detaining authority for classifying the detenu as a “known goonda”, the details of the other cases were also considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order, and hence, the impugned order is vitiated. The learned counsel further urged that the detenu never violated the bail conditions imposed in any of the earlier cases. Nevertheless, jurisdictional authority in its order wrongly mentioned that the detenu, after obtaining bail in the previous cases, violated the bail conditions in the said orders, and the said wrong mentioning of a fact itself throws light on the non-application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority while passing the impugned order.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader contended that the order of detention was passed after proper application of mind and arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act or in passing the impugned order of detention. According to the Government Pleader, some minimal delay is quite natural as the authority requires some time to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved and as well as for verifying the records and for complying with the procedural formalities. It is further urged that at the time of passing the impugned order the jurisdictional authority was fully cognizant of the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity and it was a