Kerala High Court
P. K. Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:54437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA,
1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
. K. KRISHNAN
P
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O APPA, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANNOTH, PULLUR VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671531
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
SMT.ASHITHA RIA MERIN
RESPONDENTS:
1
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2
HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
T
CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671123
3
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:54437
ARAKATTA, VIDYANAGAR-ULIYATHADKA ROAD, KUDLU,
P
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671124
4
HE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA
T
SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
5
HE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
T
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
Y ADVS.
B
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS
WRIT
PETITION
(CRIMINAL)
HAVING COME
UP
FOR
FINAL
EARING
H ON
23.07.2025,
THE
COURT
ONTHE
SAMEDAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:54437
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.
The petitioner herein is the father of Mr. Ratheesh P.V.@ManthiRatheesh
(hereinafterreferredtoas"thedetenu"forthesakeofbrevity).Onthestrengthof
Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent, invoking powers under the Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ("the KAA(P) Act" for brevity), a
preventive detention order has been issued.
2. Ext.P4revealsthatproceedingsundertheKAA(P)Actwereinitiated
against the detenu based on his involvement in five crimes registered at
Ambalathara Police Station. The details of the said crimes are as follows:
a) CrimeNo.187of2024registeredunderSections286,308r/w.Section34
of the IPC.
b) CrimeNo.188of2024registeredunderSections324,506(1)r/w.Section
34 of the IPC.
c) Crime No. 255 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448,
427, 506(1) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
d) Crime No. 706 of 2020 - registered underSections143,144,145,148,
153, 332 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Section 3(1) of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP Act).
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
4
2025:KER:54437
e) Crime No. 157 of 2024 - registered under Sections 341, 323, 324read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. Insofar as the first two crimes are concerned, investigation was
pendingatthetimeofissuanceofthedetentionorder,whileintheremainingthree
cases,thefinalreporthadalreadybeenfiledbeforethejurisdictionalcourt.Records
reveal that the proposal for detention was submitted on 19.06.2024, theorderof
detention was passed on 22.07.2024, and it was executed on 26.07.2024.
4. Ms. Sreelakshmi Sabu, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that the detention order was passed by the 2nd respondent
without proper application of mind. It was contended that there was a long and
unexplained time gap between the last prejudicial act and the issuance of the
detentionorder.Itwasfurthercontendedthatthedetenuhadbeengrantedbailin
thelastprejudicialactbythejurisdictionalMagistrateon19.07.2024,andtherefore,
at the time of issuance of thedetentionorder,theDetainingAuthoritywaslegally
boundtoconsiderwhethertheconditionsimposedbythelearnedMagistratewere
sufficient to preventthedetenufromengaginginfurtherprejudicialactivities.The
learned counsel also contended that the offences relied upon for the purpose of
preventive detentionaremerelawandorderissuesanddonotrisetothelevelof
affectingpublicorder,whichisaprerequisiteforinvokingpowersundertheKAA(P)
Act.
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
5
2025:KER:54437
5. In response, Sri. Anas K.A., the learned Government Pleader,
submitted that Ext.P4 detention order is the fourthinaseriesofdetentionorders
passed against the detenu. The first orderwasissuedon12.06.2007,pursuantto
which the detenu underwent the period of detention. A secondorderfollowedon
05.12.2015, and a third order was issuedon02.11.2017,whichwassubsequently
revokedbasedontheopinionoftheAdvisoryBoard.Itwasfurthersubmittedthat
followinghisrelease,thedetenubecameinvolvedinfivenewcriminalcases,which
necessitated the issuance of the present detention order. Regarding the grant of
bail,thelearnedGovernmentPleaderpointedoutthatbailinthelastprejudicialact
was granted on 22.07.2024, the same date on which the detention order was
passed. Therefore, it cannotbesaidthatthedetainingauthorityfailedtoconsider
the bail conditions while passing the order.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced and
examined the records.
7. Thefirstcontentionraisedbythelearnedcounselisthatthelivelink
would get snapped on account of thedelayinpassingtheorderofdetention.We
find that thelastprejudicialactwascommittedbythedetenuon20.05.2024.The
proposal was submitted on 19.06.2024, and the detention order was passed on
22.07.2024. As held by the Apex Court in T.A. Abdul Rahiman v. State of
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
6
2025:KER:54437
Kerala1,thequestionwhethertheprejudicialactivitiesofapersonnecessitatingto
passanorderofdetentionisproximatetothetimewhentheorderismadeorthe
live link betweentheprejudicialactivitiesandthepurposeofdetentionissnapped
dependsonthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.Nohardandfastrulecanbe
precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances, and no
exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that behalf. It follows that the test of
proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting the number of
months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when
thereisanundueandlongdelaybetweentheprejudicialactivitiesandthepassing
of the detention order, the court has toscrutinizewhetherthedetainingauthority
has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable
explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned when called upon to answer.
Thecourtalsohastoinvestigatewhetherthecausalconnectionhasbeenbrokenin
thecircumstancesofeachcase.Inthefactsandcircumstances,weareoftheview
that there is no undue delay in passing the order of detention.
8. The contention that the bail orderpassedbythejurisdictionalcourt
was not considered by the Detaining Authority cannot be accepted. The learned
public prosecutor has made available the court records to establish that the
detention order waspassedonthesamedaythatbailwasgrantedtothedetenu.
1
[1990 SCC (Cri) 76]
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
7
2025:KER:54437
We are also not impressed with the contention advanced by the learned counsel
that the prejudicial activities will not affect the public order.
9. In Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
Others2, the Apex Court, after referring to the earlier precedents including
Dr.RamManoharLohiav.StateofBihar3 and ArunGhoshv.StateofWest
Bengal4,held as follows:
"65.Thus,fromthevariousdecisionsreferredtoabove,itisevident
that there is a very thin line between the question of law and order
situationandapublicordersituation,andsometimes,theactsofaperson
relating to lawandordersituationcanturnintoaquestionofpublicorder
situation. What is decisive for determining the connection of ground of
detention with the maintenanceofpublicorder,theobjectofdetention,is
notanintrinsicqualityoftheactbutratheritslatentpotentiality.Therefore,
for determining whether the ground of detention is relevant for the
purposes of public order or not, merely an objective test based on the
intrinsicqualityofanactwouldnotbeasafeguide.Thepotentialityofthe
act has to be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances,
posterior and anterior for the offences under the Prohibition Act.
66. Just because four cases have been registered against the
appellant detenu under the Prohibition Act, by itself, may not have any
bearing on the maintenance ofpublicorder.Thedetenumaybepunished
fortheoffenceswhichhavebeenregisteredagainsthim.Toputitinother
words, if the detention is on the ground that the detenu is indulging in
2
[ (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1003]
3
[(1966) 1 SCR 709]
4
[(1970) 1 SCC 98]
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
8
2025:KER:54437
manufacture or transport or sale of liquor then that by itself would not
become an activity prejudicial tothemaintenanceofpublicorderbecause
the same can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the
Prohibition Act but if the liquor sold by thedetenuisdangeroustopublic
health then under the Act, 1986, it becomes an activity prejudicialtothe
maintenance of public order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the
detainingauthoritytobesatisfiedonmaterialavailabletoitthattheliquor
dealt with by the detenu is liquor which is dangerous to public health to
attract the provisions of the 1986 Act and if the detaining authority is
satisfied that such material exists either in the form of report of the
ChemicalExaminerorotherwise,copyofsuchmaterialshouldalsobegiven
to the detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an effective
representation.
10. Thus, the true distinction between the areas of "public order" and
"law and order" lies not in the nature orqualityoftheact,butinthedegreeand
extent of itsreachuponsociety.Thedistinctionbetweentheconceptsof"lawand
order"and"publicorder"isafineone,butthisdoesnotmeanthattherecanbeno
overlapping. Acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and
circumstances might cause different reactions. As far as the present case is
concerned, the prejudicial activities of the detenu leading to public disorder, as
revealed in the grounds of detention, consist of a consistent course of criminal
conduct.Thisisthefourthinaseriesofdetentionorderspassedagainsthim.When
viewed from the above perspective, it is not possible to say that the prejudicial
activities attributed to the detenu were mere law and order issues.
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
9
2025:KER:54437
11. ThisCourtdoesnotsitinappealinproceedingsunderArticle226of
theConstitutionofIndiaoverthedecisionstakenbythedetainingauthorityonthe
basis of the materials placed before the detaining authority as to whether
preventive detention isnecessaryorwarranted.Theshortareaofjurisdictionisto
ascertain whether subjective satisfaction is entertained properly on the basis of
materials placed before the detaining authority. Iftheentertainmentofthelatter
subjective satisfaction is vitiated by mala fides orbytotalabsenceofmaterialsor
by reference to and reliance on materials which cannot legally be taken note of,
certainly thepowersofjudicialreviewvestedinthisCourtcanbeinvokedandthe
order of detention on the basis of such alleged subjective satisfaction can be set
aside. But, certainly, if there are materials, it is not open to this Court to sit in
appealoverthesubjectivesatisfactionentertainedbythedetainingauthority.(See:
Ibrahim Bachu Bafan and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another5).
12. Fromaperusaloftherecords,wearesatisfiedthatallthenecessary
requirementsbeforepassinganorderunderSection3(1)ofKAA(P)Acthavebeen
scrupulously complied with in this case. The competent authority passed the
detentionorderafterthoroughlyverifyingallthematerialsplacedbythesponsoring
authority and after arriving at the requisite objective, as well as subjective
5
[AIR 1985 SC 697]
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
10
2025:KER:54437
satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot besaidthattheorderpassedunderSection3(1)
of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in any manner.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner hasnotmade
out any case for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
d/-
S
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
PS/23/7/25 JUDGE
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
11
2025:KER:54437
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 305/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1
RUE
T COPY
OF
THE
ORDER
NO.
DCKSGD/5454/2024/D1(3) DATED 22-07-2024
Exhibit P2
TRUE
COPY OF THE PRIMARY REPORT SUBMITTED
BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE
3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2024
Exhibit P3
TRUE
COPY
OF THEREPORT SUBMITTED BEFORETHE
ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
HOME
(SSA)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.07.2024
Exhibit P4
TRUE
COPYOFORDER NO.DCKSGD/5454/2024/D1 (1)
DATED
22-07-2024 BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
