Preventive detention can be justified despite a person being on bail if sufficient compelling circumstances exist.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 03.08.2025, passed against one Rahul S/o. Ramakrishnan, 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 on 09.07.2025, 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. 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, eleven 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.444/2025 of Thanur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and the detenu is arrayed as the sole accused in the said case.

4. We heard Smt. Reeha Khaderk, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

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 therefore, a detention order under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. On these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor 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. Moreover, the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after being fully satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved in criminal activities, and there is every likelihood that he would be involved in criminal activities again, violating the said bail conditions. Hence, according to the Public Prosecutor, the compelling circumstances that necessitated the passing of Ext.P1 order have been mentioned in the order itself, and therefore, the same requires no interference.

7. As evident from the records, this is the third detention order passed against the detenu in a series of such orders. The penultimate detention order was passed on 22.03.2024 and was executed on 26.03.2024. Pursuant to the said order, the detenu was detained for a period of one year. However, after his release from jail, he once again became involved in criminal activity, and a case was registered against him as Crime No. 444/2025 of Thanur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 118(2) of BNS .

8. The incident that led to the registration of the said case o