Preventive detention orders require objective evidence of imminent risk from potential bail, ensuring both subjective and objective satisfaction from the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Jayakumar, J.

The petitioner is the mother of Biju Mathew [‘detenu’ for the sake of brevity] approached this Court challenging Ext.P1, detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 05.04.2025 invoking Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [‘KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity]. The said order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody from 11.01.2025.

2. The records would reveal that the detenu has been involved in altogether 30 crimes, out of which 5 crimes were considered for passing the detention order. The detenu has been classified as ‘Known Rowdy’. The details of the crimes are as follows:

i. Crime No.1867/2018 of Panthalam Police Station registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 of IPC.

ii. Crime No.178/2020 of Enathu Police Station registered for offences under Sections 452, 354, 506, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

iii. Crime No.939/2021 of Panthalam Police Station registered for offences under Sections 451, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 353 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

iv. Crime No.1419/2022 of Adoor Police Station registered for offences under Section 457, 380, 411 r/w 34 IPC.

v. Crime No.36/2025 of Elavumthitta Police Station registered for offences under Sections 3 33, 296(b), 351(3), 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 324(4) and 3(5) of BNS.

3. The last prejudicial act is Crime No.36/2015 of Elavumthitta Police Station. The detenu was implicated as accused No.2 in the last crime. The alleged incident was on 09.01.2025. He was arrested on 11.01.2025 and has been in judicial custody since that date. The case is under investigation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a long gap of three months between the last prejudicial act and the detention order. The detenu has been in judicial custody from 11.01.2025 and therefore, there was no compelling reason to justify the order of the preventive detention. Placing reliance on the judgments in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Another , [1991 KHC 870] and Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu Tr. Sec to Govt. and Another , [2011 KHC 4343] the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the parameters laid down in these cases were not complied. It is argued that the triple test laid down in Kamarunisa (supra) was not considered by the detaining authority before passing the detention order.

5. It is further pointed out that the offences in which the detenu has been involved are of private nature and would not affect the public order or prejudicially affect the interest of the society at large. The impugned detention order has been passed in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. It is further submitted that the detaining authority failed to arrive at both objective and subjective satisfaction before passing Ext.P1 order. Furthermore, it is submitted that the two representations submitted by the detenu were not considered either by the Government or by the Advisory Committee, thereby violating the detenu's constitutional and statutory rights.

The Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor

7. Sri. Anas K. A., the learned Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the delay of 94 days is properly explained. The delay was occasioned for the collection and scrutiny of materials. It is submitted that the detenu was involved in as many as 30 crimes. Even after being granted bail in multiple cases, he has persistently engaged in anti-social conduct, thereby posing a serious and immediate danger to the community. It is submitted that Ext.P3 representation was considered by the Government and the fate was communicated to the detenu. Regarding Ext.P2 representation, it was submitted that it was not received by the Government.

8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advan