Preventive detention orders can be validly issued against individuals in judicial custody if the authority demonstrates sufficient grounds to believe they pose a future threat of criminal activity.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the wife of one Anish @ Mamas ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 22.09.2025 passed by the 2nd 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 29.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, on 26.08.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd 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, six cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.621/2025 of Mararikkulam Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 109(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, the 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, 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 is not properly considered. Moreover, the learned counsel urged that copies of some of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu are illegible and, hence, the detenu was incapacitated from filing effective representations before the Government and the Advisory Board. The learned counsel further contended that although the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Government prior to the approval of the detention order, the Government failed to consider the said representation within a reasonable time, and the decision thereon was not communicated to the petitioner. On these premises, it was argued that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Public Prosecutor, the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after being ful