Preventive detention under the KAA(P) Act is justified even for individuals on bail if prior behaviors indicate continued criminal activity.

J U D G M E N T Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

27.08.2025, passed against one Shabeer Ali @ Sabeer @ Karuman @ Taitan S/o. Abdul Samad, the detenu, under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity).

The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, on 27.08.2025, 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

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 5th detention order passed against him. After undergoing the period of detention in terms of the 4th detention order, the detenu was released from jail on 25.05.2023. Immediately thereafter, again he got involved in criminal activities, and the same resulted in passing the present detention order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved were considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No. 793/2025 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 110, 126(2), 238 r/w

3(5) the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“ BNS for short”).

4. We heard Sri. Anil K. Muhamed, 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.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, 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, as the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail were sufficient to prevent the detenu from repeating criminal activities, an order of detention under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated, and hence, the said order is liable to be interfered with.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that in the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. According to the Government Pleader, it was after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved in criminal activities, the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the 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, and hence, warrants no interference.

7. As already stated, this is the 5th detention order passed against the detenu. Altogether, four cases formed the basis for passing the present detention order, and out of the said cases, the incident which led to the registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial acti