Detention under preventive laws can validly occur even if the individual is in judicial custody, provided there is proper justification.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the mother of one Vineesh Kunjumon ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated 16.09.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 (‘KAAP Act’ for brevity). The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 24.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that it was on 30.07.2025 that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kottayam, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act, before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, four 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 against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1628/2025 of Changanassery Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 333, 110, 118(1), 296(b), 351(2) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).

3. We heard Sri. Abhijith Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. 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 the Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned that the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, it is nowhere mentioned that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity. The learned counsel submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order in a hasty manner without considering the fact that there was an effective remedy of cancellation of the bail granted to the detenu. According to the counsel, as an alternative remedy was available to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities, a drastic measure of preventive detention was not at all necessitated. On these premises, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext. P1 detention order was issued by the jurisdictional authority after complying with all procedural requirements and upon arriving at the requisite objective, as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned Government Pleader contended that, at the time of issuing the detention order, the authority was fully aware that the detenu was already in judicial custody in connection with his most recent prejudicial activity. It was only after being satisfied that there existed a real and imminent likelihood of the d