Kerala High Court
Abdul Jaleel vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:97051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1703 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL JALEEL
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, 21/1004,
CHAKKUMKADAVU, EZHUTHUPALLI PARAMBU, KALLAI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN
SHRI.COLIN ALEX
SHRI.APPU BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
(SSA) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673020
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
LAW&ORDER, KOZHIKODE CITY., PIN - 673004
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS - PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:97051
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 29.09.2025 passed against one Muhammed Ansari, the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 07.12.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months, from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, on 11.09.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of 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 goonda' as defined under Section 2(o) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved were considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.603/2025 of Maradu Police Station, alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act.
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:97051
4. We heard Sri. K. V. Sree Vinayakan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas , the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P2 order was passed without proper consideration of the relevant facts and without due application of mind. According to the counsel, the detaining authority failed to supply a copy of the detention order to the detenu, which amounts to a violation of the mandate under Section 7 of the KAA(P) Act. It was further contended that, owing to the non-service of the detention order, the detenu was handicapped in making an effective representation before the Advisory Board as well as the Government. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-service of the detention order is wholly baseless. According to him, the authorities have scrupulously complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of the KAA(P) Act, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his constitutional and statutory right to approach the Government and the Advisory Board with an effective representation has been curtailed.
7. As evident from the records, altogether four cases WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:97051 formed the basis for passing Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said cases, the last case registered against the detenu is Crime No.603/2025 of Maradu Police Station, alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. In the said case, the accused was allegedly caught red-handed with 2.510 gm. of MDMA on 08.08.2025. He was arrested in the said case on the same day itself and since then, he has been under custody. It was on 11.09.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, the sponsoring authority had mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against him. Subsequently, on 29.09.2025, the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P2 detention order. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order. Moreover, a bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P2 order after proper application of mind and arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
8. From the rival contentions raised, it is evident that the principal question arising in this writ petition is whether the detenu was supplied with a copy of the detention order at the time of execution of the impugned order. In order to verify the veracity of the petitioner's contention regarding non-service of the detention order, we have perused the records of the case made available before us by the learned Government Pleader. Upon such perusal, we are convinced that the petitioner's contention that a WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:97051 copy of the detention order was not served on the detenu is baseless. The records clearly reveal that the detention order was duly served on the detenu at the time of its execution, and there is a written endorsement to the effect that the detenu had received a copy of the impugned order as well as copies of the relied-upon documents. Moreover, a signature purporting to be that of the detenu appears beneath the said endorsement. Being so convinced, we are of the view that the petitioner's contention regarding non-service of the detention order is unsustainable. Consequently, the grievance of the detenu that he was handicapped in making a representation before the Government as well as the Advisory Board lacks merit and credibility.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:97051
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1703 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
NO. DCKKD/11495/2025-S2 DATED
29.09.2025
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT HAVING NO.
DCKKD/11495/2025-S2 DATED 29-9-2025