The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated by subsequent acquittals, impacting the validity of the detention order.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 28.01.2025 passed against one Sachin (herein after referred to as ‘detenu’), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the sister of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 29.3.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the date of detention.

2. The records available before us disclose that, on 26.12.2024, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p (iii) of the KAA(P) Act. For passing the order of detention, the authority considered two cases in which the detenu got involved. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1256/2024 of Cantonment Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 296(b), 351(2), 115(2), 309(5) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

3. We have heard Sri.Srikanth Thamban, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated, as the same has been passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel pointed out that, after the passing of the impugned order, on 17.6.2025, the detenu was acquitted in both the cases considered for issuing the detention order. According to the counsel, in the said cases, judgments of acquittal were passed by the trial court after a full-fledged trial. The learned counsel urged that the acquittal of the detenu in the said cases by itself would show that the detenu has no complicity in the commission of the offences and therefore those cases ought not have been taken into consideration by the jurisdictional authority for classifying him as a known rowdy. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the jurisdictional authority is vitiated, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, contended that the detaining authority passed Ext.P4 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, the acquittal of the detenu in the cases considered for passing the detention order subsequent to the date of the order is of little consequence and the same is not a reason to interfere with the order.

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

7. A perusal of the records reveals that, earlier, a detention order was passed against the detenu vide order dated 04.03.2024, and after completing the period of detention provided in the said detention order, the detenu again got involved in two cases, which led to the passing of the present detention order. Out of the said cases, the date of occurrence of the penultimate case is on 7.12.2024 and the date of occurrence of the last case is on 8.12.2024. Virtually, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1256/2024 of Cantonment Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 296(b), 351(2), 115(2), 309(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS .

8. As already stated, the only and the main cont