Detention under preventive laws requires establishing conditions even if the detenu is in judicial custody.

J U D G M E N T Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the father of one Siya ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 25.07.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). After obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government vide order dated 24.09.2025 confirmed the detention order, 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, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, on 24.06.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known goonda' as defined under Section 2 (o)(ii) of the KAA(P)

Act.

3. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got himself involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the order of detention. Out of the four cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.789/2025 of Alappuzha North Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. We heard Sri. M.P.Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another , [1991 (1) SCC 128] , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in cases wherein the detenu is in judicial custody, in connection with the last prejudicial activity, a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decision by the Supreme Court. According to the counsel, as the impugned order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, it was incumbent upon the authority to satisfy itself that it has reason to believe, on the basis of reliable material placed before it that, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, though in Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned that the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is not properly considered. The learned counsel submitted that for the above-

mentioned sole reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after complying with all the procedural formalities and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after being satisfied that a detention order under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act is the only way to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities. It was further contended that the jurisdictional authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, and it was on being satisfied that