Preventive detention under the KAA(P) Act is permissible despite prior bail if conditions are insufficient to prevent re-offending.

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

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

15.09.2024, passed against one Manoj C.P. @ Manu, 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 wife 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, Thrissur City, on 14.08.2025, 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. Altogether, two 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.892/2025 of Ollur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 10(2), 111, 61(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“ BNS for short”) and the detenu was arrayed as the 4th accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, 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, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal 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. The learned counsel further urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order 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 him from repeating criminal activities, a detention order 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 there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P2 detention order. According to the learned Government Pleader, as the order of detention was passed within a reasonable time, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention was snapped. 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. Likewise, 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 impugned order. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.

7. While considering the contention of the petitioner sticking to the delay in passing the impugned order, it could not be ignored that an order