Preventive detention under KAA(P) Act is valid despite bail if compelling reasons to detain are established by the authority.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

29.11.2025, passed against one Abdul Samad, 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 stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 30.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months, from the date of detention

2. As evident from the records, it was based on a proposal dated

05.11.2025 of the District Police Chief, Malappuram, that the jurisdictional authority initiated proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act. 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, four 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.857/2025 of Perumbadappu Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 118(1), 351(3) and 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, 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 Ext.P1 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 as the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail were sufficient to prevent him from repeating criminal activities, a detention order under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. The learned counsel further submitted that there occurred an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as passing the detention order, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. 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 further criminal activities, and there is every likelihood that he will be involved in criminal activities again, violating the said bail conditions. According to the learned Government Pleader, the compelling circumstances that necessitated the passing of Ext.P1 order is reflected in the order itself, and therefore, the same requires no interference. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no undue delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order and therefore the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped.

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