Preventive detention under the KAA(P) Act is justifiable when existing bail conditions are deemed insufficient to prevent further criminal activity, illustrating the authority's duty to consider such conditions carefully.

JUDGMENT :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 12.06.2025 passed against one Sreejith @ Unni, the detenu, under Section 3 (1) r/w 13(2)(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 18.08.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year, 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 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, on 06.05.2025 seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) r/w 13(2)(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 2 (p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. In a series of detention orders passed against the detenu, the present detention order is the 9th one passed against him. After undergoing the period of detention in terms of the 8th detention order, the detenu was released from jail on 20.03.2025. Immediately thereafter, again got involved in a criminal activity and the same led to the forwarding of a proposal for the initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the detenu again. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.474/2025 of Poojappura Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 121 (1), 109(1) 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 the Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention without taking note of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity and the conditions imposed on him at the time of granting bail itself were sufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in further criminal activities. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and passed the impugned order in a casual manner. The learned counsel further submitted that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the impugned order, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. Counsel further urged that though the detenu had forwarded a representation to the Government, assailing the detention order through the jail superintendent concerned, the said representation was not considered by the Government, and its fate was also not communicated. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P1 order after taking note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity and after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved