JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the wife of one Prabhajith @Chandu ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 23.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) r/w 13(2)(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 25.07.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months, from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, on 12.05.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. Altogether, seven cases in which the detenu got involved were considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P1 order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.211/2025 of Poochakkal Police Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 137(2), 127(2), 296(b), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 324(4), 110, 49, 249(C), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. We heard Sri. M.H.Hanis, 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 Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the order of detention, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a time gap of more than 2 years and 2 months between the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case registered against the detenu, and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, [1991 (1) SCC 128] , the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in cases wherein the detenu is in judicial custody, in connection with the last prejudicial activity, a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decision by the Supreme Court. According to the counsel, as the impugned order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, it was incumbent upon the authority to satisfy itself that it has reason to believe, on the basis of reliable material placed before it that, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity. According to the learned counsel, though in Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned that the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, it is nowhere mentioned that there is a real possibility of the detenu being relea