Detention order valid despite bail as authority considered and found bail conditions insufficient to prevent anti-social activities.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 24.10.2025 passed against one Mubasheer P. (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), underSection 3(1) of the (1) of theKerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007(‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that on 22.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur Rural, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu underSection 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, five 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 against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.65/2025 of the Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotics Special Squad, Kannur, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(b), and 25 of theNDPS Act.

3. We have heard Smt. Rekha Khaderk, 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 the Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that 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 narcotic criminal activities. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and the detention order was passed mechanically. On these premises, it was urged that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order after taking note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity and after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved in narcotic criminal activities. According to the learned 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. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident from the records, altogether five cases in which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing the detention order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.65/2025 of Excise Enforcement and Anti- Narcotics Special Squad, Kannur, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(b), and 25 of the NDPS Act . 7. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 25.08.2025. The detenu was arrested in the said case on the same day, and he was released on bail only on 16.10.2025. It was on 22.09.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 24.10.2025. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.

8. Notably, in the impugned order itself, the f