Preventive detention can lawfuly exist even if the individual is on bail, depending on evident risks of continued criminal conduct.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

30.10.2025 passed against one Shihabudheen, the detenu, under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 06.01.2026, 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, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, on 11.09.2025, 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 goonda’ as defined under Section 2 (o)

(ii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved were considered by the jurisdictional authority for issuing Ext.P1 order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.843/2025 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and 111(4) of the Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”) the detenu is arrayed as the

1st accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri. Vivek P. K., 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 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 the impugned order was casually passed. 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 also urged that an application seeking cancellation of bail was already pending and, therefore, there was no necessity to invoke the provisions of the KAA(P) Act in haste, as cancellation of bail itself would have been an effective remedy to prevent the detenu from repeating criminal activities. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is a time gap of around two years between the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case, and the said time gap itself will show that the detenu is not a person having a propensity to engage in criminal activities repeatedly. On these premises, it was argued that Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader 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 no