[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jerina Ouseph vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 2 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JERINA OUSEPH
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O NIXON XAVIER, AZHIVILAKOM, PUTHUVAL,
VALIYATHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695008
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.VINAYAK G MENON
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
SMT.ARCHANA P.P.
SMT.SHEHROON PATEL A.K.
SHRI.ALVIN JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, COLLECTORATE OFFICE,
KUDAPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
3 THE DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER (LAW AND ORDER)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
OFFICE OF DPC, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::2:: 2025:KER:93625
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION, SHANGUMUKHAM,
KANNANTHURA, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695007
5 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION, SHANGUMUKHAM,
KANNANTHURA, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695007
6 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682026
7 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 682026
SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::3:: 2025:KER:93625
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 08.10.2025 passed against one Nixon Xavier @ Appu, the
detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The petitioner herein
is the wife of the detenu.
2. The records reveal that it was after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that a
proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram City, on 23.08.2025, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of 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.
3. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved
were considered by the jurisdictional authority for issuing Ext.P1
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.812/2025 of Valiyathura Police
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::4:: 2025:KER:93625
Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections
296(b), 118(1), 110 and 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short
"BNS").
4. We heard Sri. Arun Chand, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1
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 were sufficient to deter the detenu from being
involved in further criminal activities. According to the learned counsel,
as the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail
were sufficient to prevent him from repeating criminal activities, a
detention order under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. On
these premises, it was argued that Ext.P1 is vitiated and is liable to be
set aside.
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::5:: 2025:KER:93625
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserts
that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order after taking note of
the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last
prejudicial activity and after being satisfied that the bail conditions
imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent
him from being involved in criminal activities. The learned Government
Pleader submitted that the detention order was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and after
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and
hence, warrants no interference.
7. 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 case registered against the detenu with respect to the
last prejudicial activity is crime No.812/2025 of Valiyathura Police Station
alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b),
118(1), 110 and 324(4) of BNS. The incident that led to the registration
of the said case occurred on 29.06.2025, and the detenu was arrested
on 30.06.2025. He got bail in the said case on 27.08.2025. The proposal
for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was forwarded by the
sponsoring authority on 23.08.2025. The sequence of the events
narrated above clearly shows that the authorities concerned had acted
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::6:: 2025:KER:93625
with promptitude in mooting the proposal and in passing the detention
order.
8. The sole contention 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
jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention. 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 an order of detention 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
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::7:: 2025:KER:93625
is already on bail, the compelling circumstances that necessitated the
passing of a preventive detention order should be reflected in the order
itself.
9. Keeping in mind the above and reverting to the case at
hand, it is evident from the impugned order itself that the fact of the
detenu's release on bail in the cases registered against him has been
specifically noted. Moreover, the impugned order states that, in Crime
No. 745/2024, although the detenu was released on bail subject to
stringent conditions, he violated those conditions and was again
involved in criminal activity, which led to the registration of the
subsequent case against him. In Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned that the
antecedents of the detenu indicate that the bail conditions imposed
upon him were insufficient to prevent him from engaging in further
criminal activity. A holistic reading of the impugned order further
reveals that the detenu's violation of bail conditions and his
involvement in criminal activity constituted one of the materials relied
upon by the jurisdictional authority to form a subjective satisfaction to
pass the detention order. We are cognizant of the fact that, in one part
of the impugned order, it is incorrectly stated that the detenu was in
judicial custody at the time the order was passed. Clearly, this
statement is mistaken. However, this error is of no consequence,
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::8:: 2025:KER:93625
particularly since the order explicitly notes that the detenu had been
granted bail in the last prejudicial activity and the jurisdictional
authority duly considered the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed
on him.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has
not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
sab
WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025 ::9:: 2025:KER:93625
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1620 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
08/10/2025 VIDE ORDER NO.
DCTVM/14525/2025-C5 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.812/2025 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27/08/2025 IN CRL. M.C. NO.2512/2025
PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 20/10/2025 BEARING R.C. NO.
466/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 20/10/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
PERTAINING TO EXHIBIT P5
REPRESENTATION ISSUED BY INDIA POST,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL TRACKING
RECEIPT PERTAINING TO EXHIBIT P5
REPRESENTATION DOWNLOADED FROM THE
INDIA POST WEBSITE MAINTAINED BY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL
DATED 17/10/2025 VIDE NO. HOME-
SSA5/411/2025- HOME ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
