Kerala High Court
Kadeeja Mol vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:64977
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. 1047 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KADEEJA MOL, AGED 49 YEARS
W/O MUHAMMED KOYA, ARAYANTE PURAKKAL CHEERAN
KADAPPURAM,PUTHIYA KADAPPURAM PO, TANUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676302
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
SMT.UMMUL FADLA T.
SMT.HASANATH P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME & VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECREATRIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676505
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
WP(Crl.) No.1047/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:64977
KERALA, PIN - 676505
4 THE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD
KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA
NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
G.P; K.A.ANAS
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.1047/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:64977
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition has been directed against an order of
detention dated 09.05.2025 passed against one Soofiyan, S/o. Koya
under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The petitioner herein is the
mother of the detenu.
2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal
was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on
27.03.2025 seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the
KAA(P) Act against the detenu before the jurisdictional authority. 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. For passing the order of detention the authority reckoned
five cases in which the detenu got involved. Out of the said cases, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.34/2025 of Kasaba Police Station alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 305(a). r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(for short "BNS").
3. We have heard Smt.Reeha Khaderk, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
WP(Crl.) No.1047/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:64977
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the impugned order is vitiated, as the same has been passed without
proper application of mind. According to the counsel, out of the cases
considered by the detaining authority, in the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity, the detenu who is arrayed as
the 2nd accused, has no role at all and he was roped in that case only
for the purpose of initiating proceedings under KAA(P) Act against
him. The learned counsel further pointed out that in the said case, the
prosecution allegation itself is that it was the 1st accused who
committed the theft of a money purse of the defacto complainant,
contained Rs.1,500/-, though it is alleged that after committing the
theft, the same was handed over to the 2nd accused, the detenu
herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that the detenu was arrayed as an accused in the said case by the
Police with malafide intentions and to wreak vengeance against the
detenu.
5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government
Pleader contended that the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order
after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to him, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the detenu has no complicity in the incident
which led to the registration of crime No.34/2025 of Kasaba Police
Station, i.e., the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is absolutely baseless. According to the Government Pleader,
WP(Crl.) No.1047/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:64977
the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention
after proper application of mind and arriving at the requisite objective
as well as subjective satisfaction.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions
advanced and have perused the records.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that altogether five cases
formed the basis for passing the impugned order of detention. Out of
the said five cases, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.34/2025 of Kasaba Police Station
alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 305(a). r/w
3(b) of BNS. Evidently, the detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused in
the said case. The allegation in the said case is that on 19.01.2025 at
11.30 p.m., inside a restaurant named 'City Snacks', the 1st accused
committed theft of a purse belonging to the defacto complainant,
which contained Rs.1,500/-. As per the prosecution allegation, after
committing theft, the 1st accused handed over the stolen purse to the
2nd accused. From the records, it is discernible that the investigation
in the said case is already completed and the final report has been
filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Undisputedly, in the said
case, the main overt act is attributed to the 1st accused. Anyhow, we
are cognizant that the jurisdiction under KAA(P) Act is essentially a
jurisdiction of suspicion. Likewise, while considering a writ petition
challenging a detention order, the court is generally not expected to
WP(Crl.) No.1047/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:64977
substitute or displace the satisfaction arrived on by the jurisdictional
authority. However, when there is an apparent error in arriving on the
subjective satisfaction by the jurisdictional authority, the
constitutional courts are not powerless but can certainly intervene.
8. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the fact in
the present case, it can be seen that earlier, in the year 2022, an
externment order was passed against the detenu under Section 15(1)
(a) of KAA(P) Act, considering his involvement in criminal activities.
The period of externment in the said order came to an end after six
months from 01.09.2022. While passing the said order, serious
offences allegedly committed by the detenu were taken into
consideration. Even then, without resorting to the drastic measure of
preventive detention, the jurisdictional authority considered it
sufficient to pass only an externment order. Thereafter, it was only on
19.01.2025, the detenu involved in a criminal case, which is shown as
the last prejudicial activity. As already noted, in the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity, he is arrayed as the 2nd
accused, and it is apparent that the main allegation is against the 1st
accused. The allegation against the detenu in the said case is very
feeble. Therefore, we are at a loss to understand why the
jurisdictional authority who had earlier passed only an externment
order which is comparatively lighter in nature, choose to resort to the
extreme step of preventive detention when the detenu was
subsequently involved in a comparatively minor case that too after a
WP(Crl.) No.1047/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:64977
lapse of considerable time from the date of the earlier externment
order. This is particularly so when the involvement of the detenu in
the last case registered against him itself appears to be doubtful.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned order
does not reflect any compelling circumstance that necessitated the
passing of a detention order.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Soofiyan, 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, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.1047/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:64977
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1047/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCMPM/5227/2025-S1 DATED 9.5.2025
ALONG WITH RELEVANT RECORDS
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL
NO. SSA1/246/2025
