Kerala High Court
Suganthi vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:59865
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. 942 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUGANTHI, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O DINESH KUMAR,
DINESH VILASOM, CHERUTHALIKKODE DAIVAPURAM,
PERINGAMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695563
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT),
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2ND FLOOR,
CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
WP(Crl.) No.942/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:59865
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PATTOOR PMG RD,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,
VIYYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
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.942/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:59865
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of one Dinesh Kumar, ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P2 order of detention dated 22.11.2024 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 22.01.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, on 02.11.2024, 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, three cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the detaining authority by passing the impugned order of detention. Out of the three cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered regarding the last prejudicial activity is crime No.930/2024 of Palode Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), WP(Crl.) No.942/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:59865 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 75(1) (i), 76 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
3. We heard Sri. Benson Ambrose, 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. P2 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 learned counsel, it was after the release of the detenu on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, that 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. However, 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 detenu from criminal activities, and hence, the order is vitiated and liable to be interfered with.
WP(Crl.) No.942/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:59865
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext. P2 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 arrived at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, 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.930/2024 of Palode Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 75(1) (i), 76 r/w 3(5) of BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on 07.10.2024. The records further reveal that the detenu was arrested in that case on 18.10.2024 and released on bail on 06.11.2024. It was on 22.11.2024, the impugned order was passed. 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 to him. 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 detenu from repeating the criminal activities. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that in the WP(Crl.) No.942/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:59865 impugned order, the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the last case registered against him as crime No.930/2024 of Palode Police Station, is specifically adverted to. However, 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. There is also no reference to any material that was available before the detaining authority to arrive at such a finding. An order of detention under KAA(P) Act is a drastic measure against a citizen, especially when it heavily impacts their personal as well as fundamental rights. When an effective and alternative remedy exists to prevent a person from repeating criminal activities, resorting to preventive detention is neither warranted nor permissible. Therefore, when the detenu is on bail, it is imperative for the jurisdictional authority to consider whether there exists any bail condition that would suffice to deter the detenu from engaging in criminal activities further. However, in the case at hand, it is evident that the sufficiency of bail conditions was not considered, and the compelling circumstances that necessitated the passing of a preventive detention order are not explained. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated and liable to be interfered with.
7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P2 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Dinesh Kumar forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other WP(Crl.) No.942/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:59865 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
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.942/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:59865
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 942/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
02.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 22.11.2024 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION
FOR PASSING EXHIBIT P2 DETENTION
ORDER DATED 22.11.2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
22.01.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
06.11.2024 IN CRL.M.P NO.9680/2024
PASSED BY HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT FOR TRIAL OF
FOREST OFFENCES CASE, NEDUMANGADU