The law permits detention of individuals on bail if prior conditions do not prevent further criminal activity.

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

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

16.09.2025 passed against one Muhammed Mansoor, S/o.Meeran (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 mother 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 01.08.2025, 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, five cases in which the detenu got involved were considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P6 detention order. Out of the said five cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.451/2025 of Vadakkekad Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 351(3), 109(1), 238 r/w 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS’), and the detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri.E.A.Haris, 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.P6 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, as the bail conditions imposed on the detenu itself were sufficient to prevent the detenu from repeating criminal activities, an order of detention under the preventive detention law was not at all warranted. On these premises, it was argued that Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P6 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 in criminal activities. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority upon proper application of mind and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.

7. A perusal of the records reveals that the incident that led to the registration of the case against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 03.06.2025, and the detenu was arrested on 23.06.2025. Subsequently, it was on 01.08.2025, the detenu got bail, and on the same day, the sponsoring authority mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against him. Subsequently, it was on 16.09.2025, Ext.P6 order of detention was passed. From the sequence of the events narrated above, it is demonstrably clear that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.

8. As alrea