Preventive detention can be justified even when an individual is on bail if the bail conditions are deemed insufficient to prevent future criminal activities.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

23.10.2025, passed against one Subash @ Varunni (the detenu) under Section 3 (1) r/w 13(2)(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the friend of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 24.12.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that on 17.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd respondent. For the purpose of initiating 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, seven 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 is crime No.1187/2025 of Poojappura Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 296 (b), 118(1), and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. We heard Sri. J. R. Prem Navaz, 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 impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. According to the learned counsel, the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order 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. The learned counsel urged that the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail were sufficient to prevent him from repeating criminal activities, and therefore, a detention order under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. On the said premise, it was urged that Ext.P4 order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that in the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. Moreover, it was submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after being fully satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved in criminal activities, and there is every likelihood that he would be involved in criminal activities again, violating the said bail conditions. Hence, according to the Government Pleader, the compelling circumstances that necessitated the passing of Ext.P4 order have been mentioned in the order itself, and therefore, the same requires no interference.

7. As evident from the records, this is the second detention order passed against the detenu. Pursuant to the said order, the detenu was detained for a period of six months. However, after his release from jail, he again became involved in criminal activities, and two cases were registered against him as Crime No.718/2025 and Crime No. 1187/2025 of Poojappura Police Station.

8. The incident that led to the registration of the last case registered against the detenu occurred on 24.08.2025, and the detenu, who is