Kerala High Court
Lissy vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:49442
1
WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 487 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
LISSY
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O JOSE, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O, KARUKUTTY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683576
BY ADV SRI.AJEESH M UMMER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ERNAKULAM RURAL, PIN - 682039
5 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAA(P)A, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 682026
2025:KER:49442
2
WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
ADV. K.A. ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON 08.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49442
3
WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P1 order issued by respondent No. 2, under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for the sake of brevity), as per which the son of the petitioner, Sri. Sijo @ Oothappan Sijo ("the detenu" for the sake of brevity) has been ordered to be preventively detained.
2. In Ext.P1 order of detention, it has been stated that on account of his involvement in 4 crimes, committed during the past seven years, the detenu has acquired the qualification for being categorised as a "known rowdy". The crimes in which the detenu got himself involved are the following:
a) Crime No. 419 of 2022 of the Angamaly Police Station registered under Sections 332, 294(b) of the IPC.
b) Crime No. 1993 of 2023 of the Thrissur East Police Station registered under Sections 395, 120B, 114, 115, 414, 212, 201, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC.
c) Crime No. 343 of 2024 of the Angamaly Police Station registered under Sections 448, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 308, 201. r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
2025:KER:49442 4 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025
d) Crime No. 1725 of 2024 of the Angamaly Police Station registered under Section 109(1), 115(2), 118 (1), 118(2), 189 (2), 189 (4), 190, 296(b), 351(2), 294 (b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It is also stated in the order that three crimes in which the detenu had been involved during the past three years have not been considered, as in one case he had pleaded guilty and in two other cases he was acquitted of all charges.
3. From the impugned order, it is discernible that proceedings under the KAA(P) Act were earlier initiated against the detenu by order dated 18.09.2022, and he was detained till 19.03.2023. After his release, the detenu got involved as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 343 of 2024 registered on 06.02.2024 at the Angamaly Police Station for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 308, 201. r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. He was arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime on 23.08.2024 and was released on bail by order dated 28.10.2024. The said case is pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Angamaly as C.P.No.30 of 2024.
4. Thereafter, the detenu got involved as the 1st accused in Crime No. 1725 of 2024 of the Angamaly Police Station registered on 28.07.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 115(2), 118 (1), 118 (2), 189 (2), 189 (4), 190 (2), 296 (b), 351 (2) and 249 (b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He was arrested in the aforesaid case on 23.08.2024 and was released on bail on 2025:KER:49442 5 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025 28.10.2024. The case is pending as C.P.No.30/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Angamaly.
5. It was thereafter that a report seeking initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act by classifying the detenu as a 'known rowdy' was submitted by the District Police Chief on 04.11.2024. It is based on the said report that the detaining authority passed the detention order on 21.11.2024.
6. The above order is under challenge.
7. Sri. Ajeesh M. Ummer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a perusal of the allegations in Crime No. 1725 of 2024 and Crime No. 343 of 2024 of the Angamaly Police Station would reveal that both the crimes are related to cases involving 'law and order' and not 'public order'. It is submitted that under Section 13 of the KAA(P) Act, after the expiry of an earlier order of detention, involvement in one crime was enough for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act and under Section 12 of the said Act, the period of detention in such cases is an enhanced period of one year. If that be the case, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not initiating proceedings against the detenu immediately after his involvement in Crime No. 343 of 2024. If the date of registration of the first crime, after the earlier order of detention is taken note of, there is a delay of more than 10 months in initiating the proceedings. If Crime No.1725 of 2024 is reckoned, there is a delay of more than 3 months and 7 days. Relying on the observations made by a bench of this Court in Azurudeen 2025:KER:49442 6 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025 M. v. State of Kerala1, it is urged by the learned counsel that the sponsoring authority is not required to wait till the arrest of the accused to submit the proposal and immediately on registration of the crime, they should have moved forward with the sponsorship and initiated proceedings under the KAA(P) Act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that while passing the order, the bail conditions imposed by the court which had granted bail were not reckoned by the sponsoring authority as well as the detaining authority to ascertain as to whether those conditions were sufficient to deter further pernicious activities of the detenu. In order to substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel would refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India2, wherein, it was held by the Apex Court that the efficacy of the bail conditions already imposed by a competent court for the same offence as against the detenu shall also be reckoned by the detaining authority prior to the passing of the order of detention.
8. In response to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that he was categorised as a "known rowdy" and an earlier order of detention was passed on 18.09.2022, and he had undergone detention till 19.03.2023. Thereafter, he had committed two crimes, and this prompted the authorities concerned to initiate fresh proceedings. He would urge that as the detenu was arrested on 23.08.2024 and was granted bail only on 28.10.2024, and the same was executed only on 11.11.2024. It is urged that in view of the above fact scenario, it cannot be said that the live link will get snapped. In 1 2025 KHC OnLine 10324 2 [2025 KHC OnLine 6223] 2025:KER:49442 7 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025 order to substantiate his contentions, the learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the judgment of this court in Rahila Nasir v. State of Kerala3.
9. We have carefully considered submissions advanced and have perused the records.
10. We find that, owing to his involvement in certain crimes, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy,' and an earlier order of detention was passed against him on 18.09.2022. He remained under detention until 19.03.2023. Subsequently, the detenu became involved in Crime No. 343 of 2024 registered at Angamaly Police Station.
11. Under Section 13 of the KAA(P) Act, the sponsoring authority is empowered to initiate proceedings if a person who has previously undergone detention is again found to be involved in offences falling under Section 2(o) or 2(p) of the KAA(P) Act. If the true objective was to prevent the detenu from engaging in further anti-social activities, the authorities were obligated to act with urgency and initiate preventive steps. However, no such timely measures were taken.
12. Instead, the authorities awaited the registration of Crime No. 1725 of 2024 on 29.07.2024 before taking any further steps. Even after that, there was no prompt action. It was only on 04.11.2024 that the District Police Chief submitted the 3 [2016(3) KHC 189] 2025:KER:49442 8 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025 sponsorship report, which eventually led to the issuance of the detention order on 21.11.2024.
13. One of the explanations offered by the respondents is that the detenu was arrested in the above crimes only on 23.08.2024. However, the scheme of the Act does not mandate that action be deferred until the accused is arrested. If it is found that a person, after undergoing preventive detention, is once again indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to public order, the authorities are well within their powers to initiate proceedings immediately, without waiting for an arrest to be recorded.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the time lag between the commission of the first offence and the passing of the detention order is so prolonged that it severs the reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. While it is true that the test of proximity is not to be applied mechanically by merely counting the number of days or months, the critical question is whether, at the time of passing the order, the detaining authority could reasonably conclude that the detenu was likely to continue his unlawful activities. Considering that a previous detention order had already been passed against the detenu, any subsequent involvement in a criminal offence after his release ought to have triggered immediate preventive action, if there was genuine apprehension or bona fides on the part of the authorities.
2025:KER:49442 9 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025 15. In the present case, with regard to Crime No. 343 of 2024, there was
a delay of more than 10 months in the submission of the sponsorship report and a delay of 11 months in the issuance of the detention order. Even in respect of the second offence, there was a delay of more than 99 days between the prejudicial act and the sponsorship report. In light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority has not been genuinely or promptly arrived at, thereby vitiating the detention order.
16. Furthermore, we find that even prior to the submission of the sponsorship report on 04.11.2024, the detenu had been released on bail in Crime No. 343 of 2024 and Crime No. 1725 of 2024. However, the detaining authority failed to consider the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate at the time of granting bail, in order to assess whether such conditions were adequate to deter the detenu from engaging in further prejudicial activities. In Joyi Kitti v. State of Kerala4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the detaining authority is under an obligation to consider and take into account the bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court in the very same cases that form the basis of the detention. The authority must then arrive at satisfaction as to whether those conditions are sufficient to prevent the detenu from indulging in further similar acts. In the case at hand, no such exercise was carried out.
4 [(1991) 2 S.C.C. 497] 2025:KER:49442 10 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025 17. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the petitioner
is entitled to succeed in this petition. The detention order passed against the detenu cannot be sustained under law.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Ext.P1 detention order dated 21.11.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Sijo @ Oothappan Sijo, forthwith if his continued detention is not required in connection with any other case. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE Sd/- K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JUDGE APM/PS/5/7/25 2025:KER:49442 11 WP.(Crl.) No. 487 of 2025 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 487/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCEKM/11360/2024-M7 DATED 21.11.2024 ALONG
WITH THE DOCUMENTS SERVED ON THE DETENU
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.
1725/2024 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION DATED
29.07.2024