Preventive detention can be justified despite ongoing bail, if there's imminent risk of repeat offenses, highlighting authority's discretion in assessing necessity.

JUDGMENT : 

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the brother of one Akshay K. ('detenu' for the sake of brevity). His challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 06.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity), against the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 11.03.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur City, on 13.11.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, five cases in which the detenu got himself involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.795/2024 of Mattannur Police Station, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, 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 Ext. P1 order is passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. The learned counsel urged that apart from registering an FIR, there is nothing to show that the detenu is having active involvement in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, the said case could not be treated as a qualified one to classify the detenu as a known goonda. The learned counsel further submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order in a hasty manner without considering the fact that there was an effective remedy of cancellation of the bail granted to the detenu. According to the counsel, as an alternative remedy was available to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities, a drastic measure of preventive detention was not at all necessitated. The learned counsel further urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention, disregarding the fact that the detenu was released on bail with respect to the last prejudicial activity, and the conditions imposed on him at the time of granting bail itself are sufficient to deter the detenu from involving in further criminal activities. The learned counsel submitted that although a representation was submitted by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu before the Government, the said representation was not considered by the Government and confirmed the detention order in a mechanical manner. According to the counsel, non-consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner itself is a ground to set aside the impugned order of detention.

5. In response, Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to him, it was after being satisfied that there is no other effective or alternative remedy to restrain the detenu from repeating criminal activities, the jurisdictional authority passed the detention ord