[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Jaleel vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:97051
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 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1703 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL JALEEL
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, 21/1004,
CHAKKUMKADAVU, EZHUTHUPALLI PARAMBU, KALLAI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN
SHRI.COLIN ALEX
SHRI.APPU BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
(SSA) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673020
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
LAW&ORDER, KOZHIKODE CITY., PIN - 673004
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS - PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:97051
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 29.09.2025 passed against one Muhammed Ansari, 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 order of detention was
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 07.12.2025, and the
detenu was 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 Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Kozhikode City, on 11.09.2025, 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 goonda' as defined under Section 2(o) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved
were considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P2
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.603/2025 of
Maradu Police Station, alleging the commission of offence
punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act.
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:97051
4. We heard Sri. K. V. Sree Vinayakan, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas , the
learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Ext. P2 order was passed without proper consideration of the
relevant facts and without due application of mind. According to
the counsel, the detaining authority failed to supply a copy of the
detention order to the detenu, which amounts to a violation of the
mandate under Section 7 of the KAA(P) Act. It was further
contended that, owing to the non-service of the detention order, the
detenu was handicapped in making an effective representation
before the Advisory Board as well as the Government. On these
premises, it was urged that the impugned order is liable to be
interfered with.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-service of the
detention order is wholly baseless. According to him, the
authorities have scrupulously complied with the procedure
prescribed under Section 7 of the KAA(P) Act, and therefore, the
petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his constitutional and
statutory right to approach the Government and the Advisory
Board with an effective representation has been curtailed.
7. As evident from the records, altogether four cases
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:97051
formed the basis for passing Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said
cases, the last case registered against the detenu is Crime
No.603/2025 of Maradu Police Station, alleging the commission of
offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. In the
said case, the accused was allegedly caught red-handed with 2.510
gm. of MDMA on 08.08.2025. He was arrested in the said case on
the same day itself and since then, he has been under custody. It
was on 11.09.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody,
the sponsoring authority had mooted the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under KAA(P) Act against him. Subsequently, on
29.09.2025, the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P2 detention
order. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that
there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the
detention order. Moreover, a bare perusal of the impugned order
shows that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P2 order after
proper application of mind and arriving at the requisite objective
as well as subjective satisfaction.
8. From the rival contentions raised, it is evident that the
principal question arising in this writ petition is whether the
detenu was supplied with a copy of the detention order at the time
of execution of the impugned order. In order to verify the veracity
of the petitioner's contention regarding non-service of the
detention order, we have perused the records of the case made
available before us by the learned Government Pleader. Upon such
perusal, we are convinced that the petitioner's contention that a
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:97051
copy of the detention order was not served on the detenu is
baseless. The records clearly reveal that the detention order was
duly served on the detenu at the time of its execution, and there is
a written endorsement to the effect that the detenu had received a
copy of the impugned order as well as copies of the relied-upon
documents. Moreover, a signature purporting to be that of the
detenu appears beneath the said endorsement. Being so
convinced, we are of the view that the petitioner's contention
regarding non-service of the detention order is unsustainable.
Consequently, the grievance of the detenu that he was handicapped
in making a representation before the Government as well as the
Advisory Board lacks merit and credibility.
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
ANS
WP(Crl)No.1703 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:97051
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1703 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
NO. DCKKD/11495/2025-S2 DATED
29.09.2025
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT HAVING NO.
DCKKD/11495/2025-S2 DATED 29-9-2025
