Detention orders must consider the likelihood of bail and potential future criminal conduct.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

10.06.2025 passed against one Ramsheed B. @ Kichu (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 father of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 24.11.2025, 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 on 16.05.2025 that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, eight cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P11 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.488/2025 of Hosdurg Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 110 r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( for short “ BNS ”).

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

4. The 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 had been granted bail in the last case registered against him, he was not actually released from jail, as he was in judicial custody in connection with another case. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the impugned order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody, 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 present case, although the jurisdictional authority was aware that the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with another case, it failed to consider whether there was any real possibility of his being released on bail and, if so released, whether he would, in all probability, indulge in criminal activities again. The learned counsel submitted that the non-consideration of this crucial fact itself demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority, thereby vitiating the impugned order.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P11 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. As already stated, the main contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without due application of mind and on an improper appreciation of facts. It was contended that, although the detenu had been granted bail in the last case registered against him prior to the issuance of the detention order, he was not in fact released from custody, as he continued to remain in judicial custody in connection with another case. It was further argued that, since the detention order was passe