Preventive detention can be justified even when a person is on bail, if compelling circumstances are established.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

05.12.2025, passed against one Sadiq, 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 mother of the detenu. The detention order was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 10.02.2026, 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 on 23.10.2025, 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 3rd respondent. For the purpose of initiating the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a "known goonda" as defined under Section 2 (o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1014/2025 of Mannarkkad Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22(C) AND 29(b) of the NDPS Act .

4. We heard Sri. T. K. Sandeep, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

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. The learned counsel further submitted that the detenu, who is arrayed as the 4th accused in the case registered in respect of the last prejudicial activity, is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is contended that the jurisdictional authority considered the said case while passing the detention order without taking note of the fact that there are no materials to establish the complicity of the detenu in the said case. On these premises, it was urged that the Ext.P1 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, 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 learned Government Pleader, the compelling circumstances that necessitated the passing of Ext.P1 order have been mentioned in the order itself, and therefore, the same requires no interference.

7. As evident from the records, the incident that led to the registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 12.09.2025, an