[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Biju Sebastian vs State Of Kerala 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. 1595 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
BIJU SEBASTIAN, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O P.D DEVASSYA PALATHUNGAL HOUSE, NEAR SH
SCHOOL, PERUNNA, KIZHAKKU KARAYIL,
CHANGANNASSERY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686002
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
SHRI.TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
SHRI.KIRAN RAJ R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF - KOTTAYAM
COLLECTORATE,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME KANNUR
REPRESENTED BY JAIL SUPERINTENDENT PODIKKUNDU,
KANNUR, PIN - 670004
WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025 ::2:: 2025:KER:93637
BY ADVS.
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. 1595 OF 2025 ::3:: 2025:KER:93637
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of
detention dated 30.08.2025 passed against one Savio Sebastian
(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 father of the detenu. The said detention order was
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 12.11.2025, 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 it was after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that a
proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kottyam, on
30.07.2025, 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 'known rowdy' as
defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether four
cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by
the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out
of the said cases, the case registered against the detenu with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1370/2025 of
WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025 ::4:: 2025:KER:93637
Changanassery Police Station alleging the commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 333, 296(b), 115(2), 118(1),
324(2) and 75(1)(iv) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
3. We heard Sri.Abhijith Sreekumar, 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 is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without
proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel,
there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in
passing the impugned order, and the said delay will certainly snap
the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose
of detention. The learned counsel further urged that, though the
petitioner had forwarded a representation to the Advisory Board
assailing the detention order, the said representation was neither
considered by the Government nor the Advisory Board, and its fate
was also not communicated to him so far. On these premises, it
was urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set
aside.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional
WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025 ::5:: 2025:KER:93637
authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to
the learned Government Pleader, there is no unreasonable delay
either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order,
and hence the petitioner's contention that the live link between the
last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the detention order is
snapped will not be sustained. The learned Government Pleader
further contended that the representation alleged to have been
submitted by the petitioner has not been received by the
Government so far, and that the contention that the representation
submitted by the petitioner to the Government was neither duly
considered nor its fate communicated to the detenu is absolutely
baseless. According to the learned Government Pleader, the
detention order 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, no
interference is warranted.
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, altogether four cases in which the
detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention
order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the detenu
with respect to the the last prejudicial activity is crime
WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025 ::6:: 2025:KER:93637
No.1370/2025 of Changanassery Police Station alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 333, 296(b),
115(2), 118(1), 324(2) and 75(1)(iv) of BNS. The incident that led
to the registration of the said case occurred on 21.06.2025. The
detenu, who was arrayed as the sole accused in the said case, had
absconded after the commission of the offence. Subsequently, it
was on 30.07.2025, that the District Police Chief mooted the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against
the detenu. Later, on 30.08.2025, Ext.P1 detention order was
passed. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals
that there is no undue delay either in mooting the proposal or in
passing the detention order.
7. Moreover, an order of detention under preventive
detention laws has a heavy bearing on the fundamental as well as
personal rights of an individual. Such an order could not be passed
in a casual manner. As already stated, four cases formed the basis
for passing the impugned order. Therefore, some minimum time is
naturally required to collect the details of the said cases and for
the verification of records. Therefore, the short delay that
occurred in this case in mooting the proposal after the commission
of the last prejudicial activity is only liable to be discarded. Hence,
the contention of the petitioner that the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been severed
WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025 ::7:: 2025:KER:93637
due to the delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the
detention order cannot be sustained.
8. While considering the contention in the writ petition
that the representation submitted by the petitioner was neither
considered by the Government nor the Advisory Board, and that its
fate was not communicated to him, it is first to be noted that
Ext.P3 is a copy of the alleged representation purportedly
submitted by the petitioner to the Advisory Board. A perusal of
Ext.P3, produced before us as an additional document by the
counsel for the petitioner, reveals that the representation is
undated. Further, no material has been produced by the petitioner
to show that such a representation was sent to the Government or
the Advisory Board. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that
either the Government or the Advisory Board has received any
representation submitted by the detenu or petitioner. At this
juncture, it is significant to note that the learned Government
Pleader strongly refuted the petitioner's contention that such a
representation was sent to the Government or the Advisory Board.
In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the representation submitted by the petitioner was not
considered by the Government and the Advisory Board, and that
its fate was not communicated to the detenu, cannot be sustained.
WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025 ::8:: 2025:KER:93637
In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the
petitioner has not made out any ground for interference. Hence,
the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025 ::9:: 2025:KER:93637
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1595 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P
NO.122/2025 DATED 04-07-2025 PASSED BY
THE ADVISORY BOARD KAAPA
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
24.10.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KAAPA
ADVISORY BOARD
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: G.O.(RT)
NO. 3898/2025/HOME, DATED 12.11.2025
