Preventive detention does not require a prior conviction, focusing instead on relevant suspicions and legal procedures.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 12.11.2025 passed against one Rabeeh P., the detenu, underSection 3(1) of theKerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007(‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The detention order was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 19.01.2026, 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, after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, on 07.10.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (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. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got 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 against the detenu is Crime No.1023/2025 of Kannur Town Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 118(2), 109(1) 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 Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel 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, although 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, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the detenu has a significant role in the last case registered against him and, therefore, cannot be heard to contend that the said case does not qualify for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against him. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Government, and its fate was duly communicated to her, and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, sticking on non- consideration of the representation, is absolutely baseless.

7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident from the records, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity crime No.1023/2025 of Kannur Town Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 118(2), 109(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS . As already noted, the incident that led to the registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on 24.08.2025. The detenu was arrested in the said case on 17.09.2025, and since then, he has been under judicial custody. The sponsoring authority mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KA