Kerala High Court
Mini Jose vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:59542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 452 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MINI JOSE
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O JOSE, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHEVOOR DESOM,
CHERPU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF,
CIVIL STATION ROAD,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680020
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM - 682026
WP(Crl.) No. 452 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:59542
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HERAING 07.08.2025, THE COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No. 452 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:59542
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the Mother of one Mijo Jose ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 12.02.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 29.04.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, on 15.01.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, six cases in which the detenu got himself involved have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.949/2024 of Aloor Police Station, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act.
WP(Crl.) No. 452 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:59542
3. We heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, 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 impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. According to the counsel, while the detenu was in jail in connection with the last prejudicial activity, his arrest was recorded in another case registered as crime No.1224/2024 of Palarivattom Police Station, and it was while continuing in judicial custody in the said case, the impugned order of detention was passed. However, the jurisdictional authority was totally unaware of the said fact and passed the impugned order under the assumption that the detenu was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, that itself shows total non-application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority, and the same would certainly vitiate the impugned order. The learned counsel further submitted that as the detenu was in judicial custody in the case registered by the Palarivattom Police Station, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to consider whether there will be any possibility of the detenu being released on bail in that case, and if so released, whether he would be involved in criminal activities further. According to the counsel, such considerations are not made in this case by the jurisdictional authority while passing the impugned WP(Crl.) No. 452 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:59542 order, as it was under a wrong impression that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity and he was released from jail.
5. Per contra, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, all the procedural safeguards to be complied with before and after passing the impugned order are scrupulously complied with, and hence, the impugned order requires no interference.
6. Before considering the rival contentions taken, it is to be noted that out of the six cases considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.949/2024 of Aloor Police Station, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act. As revealed from the records, the allegation in the said case is that on 02.12.2024, the detenu, along with the other accused in the said case, was found possessing 1.666 Kg of Ganja for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case. He was arrested in the said case on 02.12.2024, and later he was granted bail on 27.01.2025. However, the detenu was not WP(Crl.) No. 452 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:59542 actually released from jail as his formal arrest was recorded in another case on 27.12.2024, which was registered as crime No.1224/2024 of Palarivattom Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) r/w 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act, and as he was in remand in that case.
7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order under the assumption that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity and he was released from jail. In other words, the jurisdictional authority was totally non-cognizant of the fact that the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with the case registered at Palarivattom Police Station. Therefore, non- application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority is evident in this case. As the detenu was in judicial custody while passing the impugned order of detention in connection with the case registered as crime No.1224/2024 of Palarivattom Police Station, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to consider the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in that case, and if so released, the possibility of him being engaging in criminal activities further. But the same is not seen done in this case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that there is non- application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority, and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the said authority is also vitiated.
WP(Crl.) No. 452 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:59542
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Mijo Jose, forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No. 452 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:59542
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 452/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTSR/885/2025-C4 DATED 12.02.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.03.2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE EXT P3 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT REGARDING THE COMPLIANCE OF FORTHWITH COMMUNICATION U/S 3(3) OF KAAPA BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT,DATED 05.03.2025 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.03.2025