IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of imminent bail likelihood and potential prejudicial activity; mere custody does not justify detention.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

Ext.P1 order issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity), and Ext.P4 confirmation order passed by the Government are under challenge in this Writ Petition filed by the mother of Sri. Agarus (the detenu in the instant case).

2. The records available before us reveal that on account of the involvement of the detenu in three cases, registered within the limits of Kadakkavoor and Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, a proposal dated 10.01.2025, was submitted by the District Police Chief before the authorised officer. The crimes relied on by the authorities for passing the order of detention are the following:

a) Crime No. 1887 of 2021 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station, registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427, 506(ii), 308 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

b) Crime No. 731 of 2024 of the Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, registered under Sections 396(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 324(2), 110 & 3(5) of the BNS.

c) Crime No. 976 of 2024 of the Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, registered under Sections 22(C) , 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), Section 95 of BNS & Section 78 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred as ‘JJ Act’).

3. The last prejudicial activity being Crime No. 976 of 2024, the same was registered on 08.12.2024, and the accused was arrested on the same day itself. He is remaining in judicial custody in the above case.

4. The records reveal that the proposal for initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was submitted by the District Police Chief on 10.01.2025 and the detention order was issued on 21.02.2025.

5. Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 976 of 2024 of the Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, when the detention order was issued. According to the learned counsel, the detention order fails to satisfy the triple test as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamarunnisa v. Union of India & Others, [[ (1991) 1 SCC 128 ]]. It is submitted that the impugned order fails to record a clear satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the detenu being granted bail by the jurisdictional court and the likelihood of his engaging in similar offences upon release. Reliance was also placed on Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad , [[1986) 4 SCC 416]], Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi , [[ (2002 (7) SCC 129) ]] and Kamarunnisa (supra), to support his contentions.

6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the principles laid down in Kamarunnisa (supra) have been followed in its letter and spirit. It is pointed out that, in the order of detention it has been mentioned that the detenu was in judicial custody and that he is likely to be released on bail by the jurisdictional court. The learned Public Prosecutor would refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and Ors., [[ (1992) 1 SCC 1 ]], Union of India v. Ankit Ashok Jalan , [[ (2020) 16 SCC 185 ]] and Union of India and Another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad , [[ (2019) 20 SCC 609 ]] to substantiate his contentions.

7. We have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records.

8. In the case on hand, the detention order reveals that the detenu got himself involved in Crime No. 976 of 2024 of the Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, registered under Sections 2