Detention order valid if authority satisfies triple test: aware of custody, real bail possibility, likely prejudicial activity on release.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 29.11.2025 passed against one Prasanth @ Rahul Ambalam (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 30.01.2026, 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 on 05.11.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under 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. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.337/2025 of Agali Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 118 (1), 118(2), 109(1), 329(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ).

4. We heard Sri. Sarath M. S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, [ 1991 (1) SCC 128 ], the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 learned 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, the possibility of the detenu being released on bail is not properly considered. The learned counsel further submitted that there is unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay will certainly snap the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On these premises, it was argued that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order, and therefore, it cannot be said that the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. It was further contended that while the detent