Detention orders under preventive detention laws can be validly issued against individuals in judicial custody, provided there is a reasonable belief of imminent bail and likelihood of prejudicial activities post-release.

J U D G M E N T Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

02.12.2025 passed against one Shahin (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, the 3rd respondent, on 23.10.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, six cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the order of detention.

3. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.925/2025 of Valayar Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 115 (2), 118(1), 126(2), 296, 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. We heard Sri. Surin George Ipe, 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. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, [1991 (1) SCC 128] , the learned counsel for the petitioner further urged 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. According to the counsel, the last but one case registered against the detenu was purposefully foisted against him with an intention to detain him under the provisions of the KAA(P) Act. On these premises, it was contended that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Ext.P1 order was passed upon proper application of mind and after 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 detenu being released on bail and that, if so released, he would, in all probability, engage in further criminal activities, that the authority proceeded to pass the detention order. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the detention order remains legally sustainable notwithstanding the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody when the impugned o