A detention order under the KAA(P) Act can be valid despite an individual being in judicial custody if specific satisfaction criteria are met regarding potential future criminal behavior.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the cousin brother of one Binu @

Puthalam Binu ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 11.07.2025 passed by the 4th respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 17.09.2025, 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 25.06.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 4th respondent. For the purpose of initiation of 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, seven cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the order of detention. Out of the seven cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.585/2025 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(B), 118(1), 351(3), 109(1), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”) and Sections 5 and 27(1) of the Arms Act .

4. We heard Sri. Vishnu Bhuvanendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

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, the impugned order was passed without arriving at such a satisfaction, and hence, the order requires interference.

6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor 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 learned Public Prosecutor, the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after being satisfied that such an order 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 there is every chance that the detenu be released on bail, and if so released, he would in all probability indulge in criminal activities further, that the order of detention was passed. According to the Public Prosecutor, therefore, the detention order will legally sustain irrespective of the fact that the detenu was under judi