[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Revathy K vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:97408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1746 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
REVATHY K
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KEERIYAD HOYSE,VELLIYAMPURAM,
THANUR, MALAPPURAM,KERALA, PIN - 676320
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
SHRI.M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED
SMT.MEHNAZ P. MOHAMMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
682031
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA ``, PIN - 676505
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
676505
4 THE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD
KAPPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPREINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, TAVANUR, MALAPPURAM,KERALA,
PIN - 679573
WP(Crl)No.1746 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:97408
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS -PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1746 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:97408
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 03.08.2025, passed against one Rahul S/o. Ramakrishnan, 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 mother of the detenu.
2. The records reveal that on 09.07.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, seeking initiation
of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of
initiating 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, eleven cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the
detention order. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.444/2025 of
Thanur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable
under Sections 109(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(for short "BNS") and the detenu is arrayed as the sole accused in the
said case.
4. We heard Smt. Reeha Khaderk, the learned counsel
WP(Crl)No.1746 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:97408
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind
and on improper consideration of facts. According to the learned
counsel, the jurisdictional authority passed the detention 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. The learned counsel urged that the conditions imposed on
the detenu at the time of granting bail were sufficient to prevent him
from repeating criminal activities, and therefore, a detention order
under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. On these premises,
it was urged that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that
in the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was on bail in
the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is
specifically adverted to. Moreover, the jurisdictional authority passed
the detention order after being fully satisfied that the bail conditions
imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to
prevent him from being involved in criminal activities, and there is
every likelihood that he would be involved in criminal activities again,
WP(Crl)No.1746 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:97408
violating the said bail conditions. Hence, according to the Public
Prosecutor, the compelling circumstances that necessitated the
passing of Ext.P1 order have been mentioned in the order itself, and
therefore, the same requires no interference.
7. As evident from the records, this is the third detention
order passed against the detenu in a series of such orders. The
penultimate detention order was passed on 22.03.2024 and was
executed on 26.03.2024. Pursuant to the said order, the detenu was
detained for a period of one year. However, after his release from jail,
he once again became involved in criminal activity, and a case was
registered against him as Crime No. 444/2025 of Thanur Police
Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 109(1) and 118(2) of BNS.
8. The incident that led to the registration of the said case
occurred on 13.04.2025, and the detenu, who is the sole accused in
the said case, was arrested on 22.04.2025. Subsequently, he got bail
in the said case on 23.07.2025. It was on 09.07.2025, while the
detenu was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was submitted by the sponsoring
authority. Subsequently, on 03.08.2025, Ext.P1 detention order was
passed. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals
that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or
in passing the detention order.
WP(Crl)No.1746 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:97408
9. The main 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 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
WP(Crl)No.1746 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:97408
the detenu was released on bail in the cases registered against him
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to.
Moreover, in the impugned order, the sufficiency of the bail
conditions has been duly considered by the jurisdictional authority. In
Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned that the bail conditions imposed on the
detenu while granting bail to him in the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity are insufficient to restrain the detenu
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.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the detenu has not
made out any case warranting interference. Hence, the writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl)No.1746 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:97408
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1746 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 03/08/2025 MADE BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AND PRODUCED BY THE
GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN W.P ( CRL).
