Detention orders can be validly issued under preventive laws even if the detenu is in judicial custody, provided specific criteria are met.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

10.11.2025 passed against one Rajesh @ Biju @ Kopra Biju, 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 wife of the detenu. The detention order was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 19.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year, from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that, on 24.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy’ as defined under Section 2 (p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. In a series of detention orders passed against the detenu, the present detention order is the third one. After undergoing the period of detention pursuant to the second detention order, the detenu got involved in three other criminal cases, and the same resulted in the forwarding of a proposal for initiating proceedings afresh against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act, culminating in the issuance of the present detention order.

4. Altogether, three 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 against the detenu is Crime No.1022/2025 of Vattiyoorkkavu Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 305 (a), 331(4), 334(1), 238 C r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

5. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

6. 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 contended 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. The learned counsel submitted that the detenu has no involvement in the last case registered against him, and the said case was not a qualified one to be considered for passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act. On these premises, it was urged tha