Detention orders under the KAA(P) Act must consider the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on a detenu, even if the individual is on bail.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of detention dated 21.01.2025 passed against one Favas under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 26.03.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records available before us reveal that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act, 2007. For initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a “known goonda” as defined under Section 2(o) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered five cases in which the detenu got himself involved in passing the Ext.P1 order. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity committed by the detenu is crime No.903/2024 of Chavakkad Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

4. Heard Sri. K.K. Subeesh Hrishikesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that though the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, the fact that the detenu was released on bail was not taken into consideration by the jurisdictional authority. Moreover, the jurisdictional authority did not consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu by the court at the time of granting bail. According to the counsel, the conditions clamped on the detenu at the time of granting bail were sufficient to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities, and an order under KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. It was further submitted that all the procedural safeguards were duly complied with while passing Ext.P1 order, and hence, no interference is warranted.

7. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, which was considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P1 order is crime No.903/2024 of Chavakkad Police Station, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 29.10.2024, and he was arrested in the said case on the same day. Subsequently, the detenu was released on bail on 07.01.2025. It was on 19.12.2024, while the detenu was in judicial custody, the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the detenu. It was after complying with the necessary procedural safeguards, the jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P1 order of detention on 21.01.2025. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act or in passing the order of detention.

8. The main contention pressed into service from the side of the petitioner is that, though the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, the fact that the detenu was released on bail was not taken into consideration by the jurisdictional authority