A mere FIR is insufficient for detention; additional evidence of involvement is required under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, yet detaining authority's satisfaction can be based on suspicion.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

07.10.2025 passed against one Mohammed Sahal, S/o. Salim, (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 16.12.2025, 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 19.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act, before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, five 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 against the detenu is Crime No.621/2025 of Kattur Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(3), 113(3), 296(b), 111(2)(b) r/w 3(5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).

3. We have heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated, as the same is passed without proper application of mind and disregarding the procedural safeguards envisaged in the KAA(P) Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from registering an FIR, there are no materials to show the complicityof the detenu, who is arrayed as the 4th accused in the said case, in the commission of the offence. The learned counsel urged that the registration of FIR alone is not sufficient to treat the said case as a qualified one to be reckoned for passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act. The learned counsel further contended that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as passing the detention order, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The learned counsel further urged that the detaining authority passed the impugned order in a casual manner without arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction, and hence interference is warranted.

5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, asserted that the detaining authority passed the impugned order after being fully satisfied that there were sufficient materials to prove the involvement of the detenu in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the minimal delay in mooting the proposal is justifiable as a reasonable time is required for the sponsoring authority to collect the details of the five cases in which the detenu was involved and to verify the same before mooting the proposal. He further submits that the impugned order of detention was passed without much delay from the date of the last prejudicial activity and hence, it could not be said that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped.

6. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 detention order. Earlier, an externment order was passed against the detenu and whereby he was interdicted from entering the limits of Revenu District Thrissur for a