Preventive detention can occur even when a bail cancellation petition is pending, if it is established that there is an imminent risk of the detenu engaging in further criminal activity.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the mother of one Akshay @ Achu ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 30.10.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) 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 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 on 14.08.2025 that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, four 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.600/2025 of Cherpu Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 115 (1), 109(1), 118(1), 309(4), 351(3), 332(b) r/w 3(5) of the of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel contended that, among the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu, some were illegible, and that the non-service of legible copies of relied-upon documents constitutes a sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. The learned counsel further 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 for the petitioner urged that although the father of the detenu had submitted a representation to the Government, the same has not been considered, nor has its fate been communicated to him till date. According to the counsel, the non- consideration of the representation by the Government is fatal, and the same itself is a ground to set aside Ext.P1 order. On these premises, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext. P1 detention order was issued by the jurisdictional authority after complying with all procedural requirements and upon 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 the last 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 order was issued. The learned Government Pleader further submitted tha