[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sheela. J vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:92737
WP(Crl) No.1554 of 2025
1
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 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1554 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SHEELA. J
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O. MOHANAN, PULIYILKKINI 510, EDAIKKODU,
OORUPOYKA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695104
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SMT.MEERA JOPPAN
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
SHRI.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN
SHRI.ASHISH PAUL
SMT.LAXMISREE JAYANTHA KUMAR
2025:KER:92737
WP(Crl) No.1554 of 2025
2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE
2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL
STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PATTOOR PMG ROAD,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:92737
WP(Crl) No.1554 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 02.09.2025 passed against one Vineeth @ Kurian, S/o. Mohanan
(herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)
Act. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The said
detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated
06.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a
period of one year with effect from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that, on 06.08.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section
3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd
respondent. The case registered against the detenu and considered by
the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P2 detention order is
Crime No.769/2025 of Mangalapuram Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) B and 29
of the NDPS Act.
3. We have heard Sri.Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
2025:KER:92737
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. The learned counsel urged that the jurisdictional
authority passed the impugned order without taking note of the fact
that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity, and the conditions imposed on
him at the time of granting bail itself would be sufficient to deter him
from being involved in further criminal activities. According to the
counsel, as the bail conditions imposed on the detenu were sufficient
to restrain him from engaging in further criminal activities, a
detention order under the preventive detention law was not at all
necessary. The learned Counsel further urged that though the
petitioner had forwarded a representation to the Government,
assailing the detention order, the said representation was neither
considered by the Government, nor its fate was communicated. On
these premises, it was urged that Ext.P2 detention order is liable to
be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P2 order after taking note
of the fact that the detenu was on bail in the case registered against
him with respect to the last prejudicial activity and after being
satisfied that, the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the
2025:KER:92737
detenu are not sufficient to restrain him from involving in criminal
activities. According to the learned Government Pleader, the
representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the
Government without any delay, and its fate was duly communicated to
the detenu. Therefore, the contention to the contrary is baseless and
cannot be sustained. The learned Government Pleader submitted that
the order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after
proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no
interference.
6. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident
from the records, the present detention order, which is under challenge
in this Writ Petition, is the second detention order issued against the
detenu. Earlier on 20.11.2023, a detention order was passed against
the detenu for a period of six months after considering his involvement
in ten criminal cases. Out of the said ten cases considered, one was
registered alleging the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC.
7. After undergoing the period of detention pursuant to the
earlier detention order, the detenu was released from jail on
2025:KER:92737
24.05.2024. However, on 24.06.2025, the detenu got involved in Crime
No.769/2025 of Mangalapuram Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) B and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Following the same, a proposal was mooted by the sponsoring
authority for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the
detenu, which ultimately led to the passing of Ext.P2 detention order,
which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
8. The incident which led to the above said crime occurred on
24.06.2025. The detenu, who is arrayed as the 3rd accused in the
above case was arrested on 07.07.2025. Subsequently, he was
released on bail on 23.08.2025. The proposal was forwarded by the
sponsoring authority on 06.08.2025. As already stated, thereafter it
was on 02.09.2025, Ext.P2 order was passed. The sequence of the
events narrated above clearly reveals that Ext.P2 detention order was
passed while the detenu was on bail in the last case registered against
him.
9. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that it was without taking note of the fact that the
detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity and without considering the sufficiency of the
bail conditions imposed by the court at the time of granting bail, the
2025:KER:92737
jurisdictional authority passed the detention order. While considering
the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in the above regard, it
is to be noted that there is no law that precludes the jurisdictional
authority from passing a detention order against a person who is
already on bail. However, when a detention order has to be passed
against a person who is on bail, it is incumbent upon the jurisdictional
authority to take note of the said fact and to consider whether the bail
conditions imposed on such a person while granting bail by the court
are sufficient to restrain him from being involved in criminal
activities. Undisputedly, an order of detention is a drastic measure
against a person. Therefore, when there are other effective remedies
available under the ordinary criminal law to deter a person from
engaging in criminal activities, an order of preventive detention is
neither necessitated nor legally permissible. Therefore, when a
person is already on bail, the compelling circumstances that
necessitated the passing of a preventive detention order should be
reflected in the order itself.
10. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case at
hand, it can be seen that in the impugned order itself, the fact that
the detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him is
specifically adverted to. Moreover, in the impugned order, the
sufficiency of the bail conditions has been duly considered by the
2025:KER:92737
jurisdictional authority. In Ext.P2 order, it is mentioned that the
antecedents of the detenu show that he is a person having scant
respect for the bail conditions imposed on him. In Ext.P2 order, it is
further recorded that the proceedings under ordinary criminal laws
are not sufficient to restrain him from repeating criminal activities. A
holistic reading of the impugned order further reveals that the act of
the detenu violating the bail conditions and being involved in criminal
activities is one of the materials which the jurisdictional authority
relied on to enter into a subjective satisfaction to pass the detention
order. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on the
detenu was not considered by the jurisdictional authority cannot be
sustained.
11. While considering the contention in the writ petition that
the representation submitted by the petitioner was not considered by
the Government, and that the fate of the representation was not
communicated to him, it is to be noted that the right of a detenu to
get his representation considered by the Government is a
constitutional as well statutory right. However, the records reveal
that the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P6 representation
submitted by her was not considered by the Government is wholly
baseless. The copy of the representation (Ext.P6), appended to the
2025:KER:92737
writ petition, shows that it is dated 11.09.2025. Admittedly, the
representation was received by the Government on 12.09.2025. From
a perusal of the copy of a letter dated 17.09.2025, made available by
the learned Government Pleader for our perusal, we are satisfied that
Ext.P6 representation was duly considered by the Government and its
fate was communicated to the detenu through the Jail Superintendent
concerned.
12. Moreover, as evident from the records, it was on
18.09.2025 that the matter was referred by the Government to the
advisory board for its opinion. Therefore, it is discernible that the
Government had considered the representation submitted by the
petitioner and communicated its fate to the detenu before the matter
was forwarded to the advisory board for opinion. Likewise, a perusal
of the confirmation order dated 06.11.2025 makes it clear that the
detention order was confirmed only after considering the opinion of
the advisory board and the representations submitted by the detenu
as well as the one submitted on his behalf. Hence, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation
submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the Government
cannot be sustained.
In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the
2025:KER:92737
petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the
impugned order. Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
2025:KER:92737
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1554 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.
TR/77/KAA(P)A/2025 SB DATED 06.08.2025
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
BEARING NO. DCTVM/12905/2025-C1 DATED
02.09.2025 PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
03.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE ATTINGAL
POLICE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M. P.
NO. 3509/2025 DATED 23.08.2025 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 24.06.2025
IN CRIME NO. 769/2025 OF THE
MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT
BEARING CONSIGNMENT NO. RL620311649IN
OF THE INDIA POST.
