Detention valid if authority satisfies triple test despite custody in last prejudicial activity case.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 19.12.2025 passed against one Aboobacker (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), underSection 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’ for brevity).

2. The records reveal that on 14.11.2025, 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. 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. Altogether, eleven cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P5 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1106/2025 of Alathur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 331 (4) and 334(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ).

4. We heard Sri. Akhil Binoy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. 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 Ext.P5 order, it is mentioned that the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the possibility of the detenu being released on bail is not properly considered. The learned counsel submitted that there is unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act as well as in passing the impugned order of detention, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On these premises, it was urged that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, the detention order was passed by the competent authority upon being fully satisfied that such detention was the only effective means to prevent the detenu from repeating his criminal activities. It was further contended that while passing the detention order, the authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. It was only upon being satisfied that there was every likelihood of the detenu being released on bail and that, if so released, he would in all probability indulge in further criminal activities, that the order of detention came to be passed. According to the learned Government Pleader, therefore, the order of detention will legally sustain irrespective of th