The court established that a preventive detention order can be validly issued even when the individual is on bail if circumstances necessitate such action.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 30.07.2025 passed against one Badusha Muthu @ Monayi, S/o. Muthu, 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. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 04.10.2025, 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 29.04.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. However, the proposal was returned on the ground that there was no possibility of the detenu, who was then in judicial custody, obtaining bail. Subsequently, the detenu approached the Sessions Court, Thrissur, seeking bail in the case in which he was under judicial custody. Consequently, on 09.07.2025, the sponsoring authority resubmitted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu, which ultimately resulted in the passing of the Ext.P1 detention order. For the purpose of initiating 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 the detention order. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.387/2025 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1), 103(1), 253(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”)

and the detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, 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 impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. According to the learned counsel, 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. The learned counsel urged that the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail were sufficient to prevent him from repeating criminal activities, and a detention order under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. According to the counsel, Ext.P1 order was passed in a casual manner, and it was without assigning any reason, the jurisdictional authority passed an order of detention for a maximum period of one year. The learned counsel further contended that the authorised officer, after passing the impugned order, has failed to forward the same forthwith to the Government as mandated under Section 3 (3) of the KAA(P) Act, and such non-compliance with a statutory requirement itself will vitiate the detention order. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

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. Likewise, it was after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail t