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
