Preventive detention may be executed even if the individual is 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 28.09.2025 passed against one Bento, S/o. Francis, 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 paternal aunt of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 10.12.2025, 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 25.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, 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, 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.1176/2025 of North Paravur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(1), 296(b), 118(1), 351(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri. M. Vivek, 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 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 likelyhood that he would involve in criminal activities again violating the said bail conditions. Hence, according to the Public Pleader, the compelling circumstance necessitated the passing of Ext.P1 order is mentioned in the order itself, and therefore, the same requires no interference.

7. A perusal of the records reveals that out of the cases formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.1176/2025 of North Paravur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(1), 296(b), 118(1), 351(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of the BNS . The incident which led to the registration of the said case occ