Preventive detention valid despite bail if conditions inadequate to prevent recidivism; explained delays and time gaps do not vitiate order.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 23.01.2026, passed against one Lijo Joji, the detenu, underSection 3(1) of theKerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007(‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 12.03.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the date of detention.

2. As evident from the records, it was based on a proposal dated 05.01.2026 of the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, 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.762/2025 of Aroor Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(2), 324(4) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. We heard Sri. S. Rajeev, 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. It was further submitted that while passing Ext.P1 order, the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that there was a time gap of around two years between the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case registered against the detenu, and the said time gap itself would show that the detenu is not a person having the propensity to be involved in criminal activities repeatedly. On these premises, it was urged that the detention 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