Detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act is justified even with pending bail applications if there is a risk of repeated criminal activity.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

11.06.2025, passed against one Vishnu @ Vishnu Pullani (herein after referred to as detenu), under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 22.08.2025, 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 it was on 13.05.2025 that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, nine 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.725/2025 of Angamally Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 329(4), 351(3), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

3. We heard Sri. Anto Thomas Palatty, 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 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 the detenu is not involved in the last case registered against him. It was further submitted that in the said case, the detenu approached this Court with Crl.M.C No.5404/2025 to quash the proceedings in the said case, and the de facto complainant filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the case with the detenu has been settled. Anyhow, this Court declined to quash the FIR in the said case, considering the antecedents of the detenu. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity ought not to have been considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the detention 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 mere pendency of a bail cancellation application does not preclude the detaining authority from passing a detention order, as cancellation of bail is not always an effective remedy to curb the criminal activities of habitual offenders. According to the Government Pleader, the order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.

6. As already stated, nine cases in which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.725/2025 of Angamally Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section