Preventive detention orders must consider a person's bail conditions to ensure lawful application of the law.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the wife of one Harshad K. P. ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 23.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 10.12.2025, 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 26.08.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, six cases in which the detenu got himself involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.30/2025 of Kunnamangalam Excise Range Office, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B), 22(b) and 60(3) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. Benson Ambrose, 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 was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further submitted that prior to the passing of the detention order, although the detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority passed the said order under an assumption that the detenu was under custody in the said case. According to the counsel, as the detenu was on bail while passing the impugned order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the detenu. The learned counsel pointed out that a preventive detention order could be legally passed against a person who is on bail only when the jurisdictional authority arrives at a satisfaction that the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail to him are insufficient to deter him from being involved in criminal activities. According to the counsel, in the case at hand, the non-mentioning of the fact that the detenu was on bail and the non-consideration of the bail conditions clamped on the detenu itself show the non-application of mind of the detaining authority, and the same vitiates the impugned order.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Public Prosecutor, all the procedural safeguards required to be complied with before and after passing the impugned order were scrupulously observed, and hence, the impugned order requires no interference.

6. Before considering the rival contentions taken, it is to be noted that out of the six cases considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.30/2025 of Kunnamangalam Excise Range Office, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(B), 22(b) and 60(3) of the NDPS Act. The incident which led to the registration of the said case occurred on 04.07.2025, and he was arrested on the same day itself