Preventive detention requires clear justification, especially when the individual is in custody, to avoid circumvention of regular legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 detention order passed by the 3^rd respondent 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 father of Sooraj [‘detenu’ for the sake of brevity]. On the basis of Ext.P1 proposal dated 27.12.2024, Ext.P2 detention order was passed on 05.02.2025, classifying the detenu as ‘Known Rowdy’ under Section 2(p)(iii) of KAA(P) Act.

2. The records produced before us would reveal that the detenu has been involved in seven crimes. The details of those crimes are as follows:

The last prejudicial act of the detenu was Crime No.1256/2024 of Cantonment Police Station, registered for offence under 126(2), 296(b), 351(2), 115(1), 309(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The alleged occurrence was on 08.12.2024 at 11 p.m. The FIR was registered on 09.12.2024. He was arrested on the same date and is in judicial custody.

Submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner

3. Sri. Shajin S. Hameed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is a gap between the last prejudicial act and the passing of Ext.P2 detention order. The last prejudicial act alleged against the detenu is Crime No.1256/2024 of the Cantonment Police Station. It was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 351(2), 115(1), 309(2), 3(5) of BNS. The date of the alleged occurrence was 08.12.2024. The FIR was registered on 09.12.2024, and the detenu was arrested on the same day. Ext.P2 order was passed on 05.02.2025. Hence, the time gap between the last prejudicial act and the passing of the detention order is about two months. No plausible explanation is offered for the delay caused. The learned counsel urged that the inordinate delay of about two months is fatal and such delay vitiates the proceedings. It is pointed out that the delay itself would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while Ext.P1 proposal mentions that the detenu was arrested on 09.12.2024 in Crime No.1256/2024 of Cantonment Police Station, it does not indicate whether the detenu has filed any bail application. Moreover, there is no apprehension expressed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. In Ext.P2 order, the detaining authority has mechanically concluded that, if released on bail, the detenu is likely to repeat the offence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the very purpose of invoking the provisions of the KAA(P) Act is the immediate prevention of anti-social activities. However, there are no compelling reasons stated in the grounds of detention to justify the preventive detention of the detenu, particularly in light of the fact that he is al