Preventive detention may be upheld when prior bail conditions are deemed insufficient to prevent future criminal activities.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 19.8.2025, passed against one Fahad, S/o Muhammedali, 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. The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 17.10.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, on 3.7.2025, after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, 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, four 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.888/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 182(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 296(b), 110, 191 and 329(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS for short”).

4. We heard Sri. Mansoorali, 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.P1 order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel 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. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is a time gap of two years between the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case, and the said time gap itself will show that the detenu is not a person having a propensity to engage in criminal activities repeatedly. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that 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 that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the Ext.P1 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. A perusal of the records reveals that, earlier, an externment order was passed against the detenu, interdicting him from entering the revenue district, Thrissur for a period of six months. However, after completing the period of externment, the d