A detention order can be justified even with mere FIR registration if sufficient material exists to establish the detenu's involvement.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 27.08.2025 passed against one Muhammed Musthafa, S/o Aboobacker Sidhik, (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 31.10.2025, 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 19.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, the 3rd respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act, before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, five cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned detention order.

3. Out of the five cases considered for passing Ext.P2 detention order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is Crime No.536/2025 of Cherpulassery Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 31(4), 305(a), 317(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

4. We have 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 the impugned order is vitiated, as the same is passed without proper application of mind and disregarding the procedural safeguards envisaged in the KAA(P) Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the investigation in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is still in progress and registration of FIR alone is not sufficient to classify the said case as a qualified one to be reckoned for passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act. According to him, apart from the FIR registered, there are no other materials substantiating the involvement of the detenu in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity.

6. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, asserted that the detaining authority passed the impugned order after being fully satisfied that there were sufficient materials to prove the involvement of the detenu in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, and the decision taken by the jurisdictional authority is not solely on the basis of the FIR registered in that case. According to the learned Government Pleader, the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted in the said order.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.

8. It was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P2 detention order. As evident from records, altogether five cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P2 order. Out of the said five cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.536/2025 of Cherpulassery Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 31(4), 305(a), 317(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The detenu, who is arrayed as the fifth accused in the said case, was arrested on 29.06.2025. Subsequently, he got bail i