Kerala High Court
Sethumadhavan vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:61604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 518 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SETHUMADHAVAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. SUKUMARA PANICKER, KANDAMANGALATH HOUSE, PUTHUR,
ARAKKUPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV SHRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON,
VIYYOOR CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680010
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VIYYOOR POLICE STATION VIYYOOR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680010
5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
MALAPPRUAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:61604
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:61604
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the father of one Mohankumar
('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and his challenge in this Writ
Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated
01.04.2025 passed by the 6th respondent under Section 3(1) of the
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act'
for brevity). The detention order stands confirmed by the
Government vide order dated 04.06.2025, and the detenu has been
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, Malappuram, on 01.03.2025 seeking
initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act
before the jurisdictional authority, the 6th 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.
3. Altogether, eight cases in which the detenu got
involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for
passing the order of detention. Out of the eight cases considered,
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:61604
the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is
crime No.29/2025 of Mankada Police Station, alleging the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4)
r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') and the
detenu was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.
4. We heard Sri.Kammappu C.M., the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without
proper application of mind. The main contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the detention order
was passed while the detenu is in judicial custody in connection
with the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority who
passed the impugned order should have explained on the basis of
what material it entered into a conclusion that there is possibility
of the detenu being released on bail in connection with the last
prejudicial activity. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v.
Union of India and another, [1991 (1) SCC 128] the learned
counsel contended that an order of detention can be validly passed
against a person who is already in judicial custody in connection
with another case only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:61604
in the said case by the Supreme Court.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after complying all the procedural
formalities and after arriving on the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, the
impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional
authority after being satisfied that a detention order under Section
3(1) of KAA(P) Act is the only way to deter the detenu from
repeating criminal activities. It was further contended that the
jurisdictional authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu
was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial
activity, and it was on being satisfied that there is every possibility
of the detenu being released on bail, and if so released, he would in
all probability again indulge in prejudicial activities. According to
the learned counsel, therefore, no interference is warranted in the
impugned order.
7. From the rival contentions raised, it can be gathered
that the main question that arises in this petition is whether an
order of detention under Section 3(1) of KAA(P) Act can be validly
passed against a person who is in judicial custody in connection
with the last prejudicial activity. While answering the said question,
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:61604
it is to be noted that, by a series of judicial pronouncements
rendered by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, it is well
settled that there is no legal impediment in passing an order of
detention against a person who is in judicial custody in connection
with the last prejudicial activity. However, an order of detention
against a person who is in judicial custody in connection with the
last prejudicial activity cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.
The circumstances that necessitate the passing of such an order
must be reflected in the order itself. In Kamarunnissa's case
(cited supra), the Supreme Court made it clear that a detention
order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed;
"Even in the case of a person in custody a detention
order can validly be passed (1) if the authority
passing the order is aware of the fact that he is
actually in custody (2) if he has reason to believe on
the basis of reliable materials placed before him (a)
that there is a real possibility of his being released
on bail and (b) that on being so released he would in
probability indulged in prejudicial activity and (3) if
it is essential to detain him to prevent him from
doing so. If the authority passes an order after
recording his satisfaction in this regard such an
order would be valid."
8. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in
Veeramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu [1994 (2) SCC 337] and
in Union of India v. Paul Manickam [2003 (8) SCC 342].In
view of the said decisions, in cases wherein the detenu is in judicial
custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, a detention
order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only
on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decisions by
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:61604
the Supreme Court.
9. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reverting to the facts in the
present case, it can be seen that the case registered against the
detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime
No.29/2025 of Mankada Police Station, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 331(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS.
The detenu was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case, and he
was arrested on 26.01.2025. He has been in judicial custody since
his arrest. In Ext.P1 impugned order, it is specifically stated that at
the time of passing the said order, the detenu was in custody in
connection with the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity. Therefore, it is decipherable that the detaining
authority was cognizant of the fact that the detenu was in custody
at the time when it passed Ext.P1 order. In the impugned order, it
is specifically mentioned that there is every possibility of the
detenu being released on bail, and if so released, he would in all
probability again indulge in prejudicial activities. Moreover, in the
order, it is asserted that the antecedents of the detenu suggest that
if he is released on bail, he will repeat criminal activities, and
hence, an order of detention under KAA(P) Act is highly warranted
to deter him from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, we have
no hesitation in holding that the jurisdictional authority passed the
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:61604
impugned order on being satisfied of the triple test mentioned in
Kamarunnissa's case, which we have detailed above.
10. A perusal of the records further reveals that all the
procedural formalities before and after passing an order of
detention have been fully complied with in this case. Similarly, from
the records as well as from the impugned order, it is discernible
that the said order has been passed by the jurisdictional authority
after arriving at the requisite subjective as well as objective
satisfaction.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner
has not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ
petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.518 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:61604
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 518/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCMPM/3529/2025-S1 DATED 01.04.2025
PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER
