Kerala High Court
Asuma Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:64826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 3RD BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 938 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ASUMA BEEVI
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O SHAHUL HAMEED, BHAVAS MANSIL, KANIYAPURAM
NORTH, CHANAKKARA P.O, KADINAMKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695301
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
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 - 695043
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682026
WP(Crl.) No.938 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:64826
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 25.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.938 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:64826
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of one Fawas ('detenu' for the sake
of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against
Ext.P1 order of detention dated 12.06.2025 passed by the 2nd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity).
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, on 07.05.2025,
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 involved have been
considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order
of detention. Out of the said cases considered by the jurisdictional
authority, the case registered regarding the last prejudicial activity is
crime No.693/2025 of Attingal Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 140(4), 309(6), 311 r/w 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
WP(Crl.) No.938 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:64826
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. 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.
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.
WP(Crl.) No.938 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:64826
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.693/2025 of Attingal Police Station,
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 140(4),
309(6), 311 r/w 3(5) of BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case
was on 25.03.2025. The records further reveal that the detenu was
arrested in that case on 26.03.2025 and released on bail on
29.04.2025. It was on 12.06.2025, 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.
7. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the facts in
WP(Crl.) No.938 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:64826
the present case, it can be seen that the impugned order, the fact that
the detenu was released on bail in the last case registered against him
as crime No.693/2025 of Attingal 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. An
order of detention under the 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.
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of
detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Viyyur, is
directed to release the detenu, Sri.Fawas, forthwith, if his detention is
WP(Crl.) No.938 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:64826
not required in connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of Central Jail, Viyyur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.938 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:64826
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 938/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
DCTVM/7914/2025-C1 DATED 12.06.2025 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
05.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE DETENU
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
05.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
