Preventive detention under the KAA(P) Act is justified despite detenu being on bail if bail conditions are deemed insufficient to deter criminal activities.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 27.06.2025 passed against one Ajith @ Unni, the detenu, under Section 3 (1) r/w 13(2)(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the sister of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 29.08.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year, from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, on 27.05.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) r/w 13(2)(1) of 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. In a series of detention orders passed against the detenu, the present detention order is the third one. After undergoing the period of detention pursuant to the second detention order, the detenu once again became involved in criminal activity. This resulted in the forwarding of a proposal for initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu afresh, culminating in the issuance of the present detention order. The case registered against the detenu, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case, with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.479/2025 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 140 (4), 127(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 110 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, 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 Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention 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. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and passed the impugned order in a casual manner. The learned counsel further submitted that the detenu has no involvement in the last case registered against him, and the said case was not a qualified one to be considered for passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act. The learned Counsel further urged that after the confirmation of the detention order by the Government, though the petitioner had forwarded a representation to the Government assailing the detention order, the said representation was not considered by the Government in time, and its fate was also not communicated. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P1 order after taking note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity and after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved in crim