Kerala High Court
Usha vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:59729
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. 849 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
USHA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O PUSHPENDRA BABU, KALLUVILAKAM, AYIROOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695310
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,, PIN - 695033
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
WP(Crl.) No.849 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:59729
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST,
PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.849 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:59729
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of one Devanarayanan, S/o. Pushpendra Babu ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 10.04.2025 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 Government confirmed the said order of detention vide order dated 19.06.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, on 07.02.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. 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. 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 six cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered regarding the last prejudicial activity is crime No.35/2025 of WP(Crl.) No.849 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:59729 Kalamassery Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 119(1), 333 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") and the detenu was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case.
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 Ext. P1 order was passed by the jurisdictional authority without proper application of mind and without arriving on the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, it was after the release of the detenu on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, the impugned order of detention was passed. However, the jurisdictional authority, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by the court at the time of granting bail. The counsel urged that the jurisdictional authority should have passed such an order only after being satisfied that the said bail conditions are not sufficient to restrain the detenu from repeating criminal activities. The counsel urged that, in the impugned order, there is nothing to suggest that the same was passed by the jurisdictional authority after being satisfied that the conditions imposed are not sufficient to deter the WP(Crl.) No.849 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:59729 detenu from criminal activities, and hence, the order is vitiated and hence, liable to be interfered with.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext. P1 order of detention was passed after complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. According to the Government Pleader, as the jurisdictional authority passed the order after proper appreciation of facts and arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
6. While considering the rival contentions, it is to be noted that the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.35/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 119(1), 333 r/w 3(5) of BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on 13.01.2025. The records further reveal that the detenu was arrested in that case on 14.02.2025 and released on bail on 21.03.2025. Therefore, while passing the order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to take note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in the said case and also to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on him by the court while granting bail. Moreover, the jurisdictional authority should have passed such an order of detention only after being satisfied that the said bail conditions are not sufficient to restrain the WP(Crl.) No.849 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:59729 detenu from repeating the criminal activities. In the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned that the detenu was released on bail in the last case registered against him as crime No. 35/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station. Nevertheless, in the impugned order, it is nowhere mentioned that the bail conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail are not sufficient to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated and liable to be interfered with.
7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Devanarayanan 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, Viyyur, Thrissur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.849 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:59729
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 849/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTVM/3211/2025-S13 DATED
10.04.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE
G.O(RT).NO.2055/2025/HOME DATED
19.06.2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
25.06.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 25.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECIPT,
DATED 25.06.2025