Non-application of mind by the detaining authority renders detention order legally unsustainable, particularly when crucial facts regarding the detenu's custody are overlooked.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the wife of one Sabari @ Ansar ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 18.11.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) r/w 13(2)(i) 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 23.01.2026, 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 it was on 22.10.2025 that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, thirteen 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 with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.993/2025 of Mannarkkad Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 127 (7), 118(1), 140(2), 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( for short “ BNS ”).

3. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel pointed out that, prior to the passing of the detention order, although the detenu was granted bail in the last case registered against him, he was not actually released from jail, as he was in judicial custody in another case. According to the learned counsel, while passing the order, the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the above-mentioned fact and proceeded under the assumption that the detenu had been released from jail. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the impugned order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with a case, it was incumbent upon the authority to satisfy itself that it had reason to believe, on the basis of reliable material placed before it, that there was a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that, upon such release, he would, in all probability, indulge in prejudicial activities. According to the counsel, in the case at hand, the non-mentioning of the fact that the detenu was under judicial custody and the non-consideration of the said fact itself show non- application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority, which vitiates the impugned order.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, 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 Government Pleader, all the procedural safeguards required to be complied with before and after passing a detention 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 thirteen cases considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.993/2025 of Mannarkkad Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 127 (7), 118(1), 140(2), 110 r/w 3(5) of the BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the s