Kerala High Court
Sheeba vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:37678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 241 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SHEEBA, AGED 54 YEARS
W/O P.J DENNY, PONNOKKARAN HOUSE,
PALLAN COLONY,ANCHERY, KURIACHIRA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006
BY ADVS.
SRI.VINAY RAMDAS
SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (THRISSUR CITY)
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :2: 2025:KER:37678
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
OLLUR POLICE STATION, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680360
5 JAIL SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON KANNUR, PODIKKUNDU,
PALLIKKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670004
BY ADV. SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2025, THE COURT ON 30.05.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :3: 2025:KER:37678
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 27.09.2024 passed against one Nino @ Naimar, S/o. Denny, 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. The said order of detention was
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 29.11.2024, and the
detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of one year, from the
date of detention.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Thrissur City, on 22.08.2024 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 2p(iii) of the
KAA(P) Act.
3. Earlier, on 27.10.2020, an order of detention under
Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act was passed against the detenu and
Ext.P1 order of detention is the second order of detention passed
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :4: 2025:KER:37678
against him. For passing the earlier order of detention dated
27.10.2020, 16 cases in which the detenu was got involved were
considered. After undergoing detention in terms of the first
detention order, the detenu was released from jail on 28.04.2021.
However, after his release, he got involved in the two other criminal
cases out of which the last case registered against him is crime
No.369/2024 of Ollur Police Station alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, and 308 r/w 34 IPC
and the detenu is arrayed as the 4th accused in the said case.
4. We heard Sri. Vinay Ramdas, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas , the learned
Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order was passed without proper application of mind and
without arriving on the requisite subjective as well as objective
satisfaction. According to the learned counsel, apart from registering
an FIR, there is nothing to prove the complicity of the detenu in the
last prejudicial activity and hence the said case should not have been
considered by the jurisdictional authority in passing the impugned
order. The learned counsel further urged that the impugned order of
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :5: 2025:KER:37678
detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority without properly
noticing 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 detenue from repeating criminal activities. The
learned counsel submitted that as the conditions imposed were
sufficient to restrain the detenu from involving in criminal activities,
an order of detention which is having a heavy impact on the personal
liberty of the detenu, was not at all necessitated.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that Ext.P1 order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after
proper application of mind and after arriving at the requisite objective
as well as subjective satisfaction. It was further submitted that the
jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after being fully
convinced about the involvement of the detenu in the last prejudicial
activity. The Government Pleader further urged that the jurisdictional
authority was fully cognizant of the fact that the detenu was on bail
in connection with the last prejudicial activity and the impugned
order was passed after considering the sufficiency of the bail
conditions imposed, while granting bail to the detenu.
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :6: 2025:KER:37678
7. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention
is the second order of detention passed against the detenu. As
evident from the records, for passing the earlier order of detention
the jurisdictional authority considered 16 cases in which the detenu
was got involved. After completing the period of detention in terms
of the earlier order of detention, the detenu got involved in two other
cases and Ext.P1 order was passed after considering the involvement
of the detenu in the said cases. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.369/2024 of Ollur Police Station alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 IPC.
As revealed from the records, the detenu was arrested in the said
case on 07.05.2024 and he was released on bail on 08.07.2024.
Thereafter, it was on 22.08.2024, the District Police Chief, Thrissur
City, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under
KAA(P) Act against the detenu. Subsequently, on 27.09.2024, Ext.P1
order of detention was passed.
8. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that apart from registering an FIR, there is nothing
to prove the complicity of the detenu in the last prejudicial activity
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :7: 2025:KER:37678
and hence the said case should not have been considered by the
jurisdictional authority while passing the impugned order. While
considering the said contention, it is to be noted that mere
registration of an FIR alone is not sufficient to treat a case as a
qualified one to initiate the proceedings under KAA(P) Act. Now by a
series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that apart from
registering an FIR, there must be something more to treat a case as
a qualified one for passing an order under KAA(P) Act. However, it
cannot be ignored that the jurisdiction to pass an order under KAA(P)
Act is a jurisdiction of suspicion. Therefore, there is no legal
requirement that in order to treat a case as a qualified one, a final
report should be filed in that case. However, as already stated, there
must be some material to prove the complicity of the detenu in the
commission of the offence apart from mere registration of an FIR.
Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the facts in the present
case, it can be seen that in the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity, the detenu is seen arrayed as the 4th
accused. A perusal of the records further reveals that there are
sufficient materials to prima facie prove the detenu's involvement in
the said case. In the statement of witnesses recorded in the said
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :8: 2025:KER:37678
case, the involvement of the detenu is specifically mentioned.
Moreover, specific overt act is also seen assigned to him. Therefore,
we are of the view that the detenu could not be heard to say that
apart from registering an FIR there is no materials to prove the
complicity of the detenu in the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity.
9. Another 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 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 an order of
detention is passed against a person who is on bail, it is incumbent
upon the 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 prevent him from involving in
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :9: 2025:KER:37678
criminal activities. Keeping in mind the above, it can be seen that in
the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was released on
bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is specifically mentioned. Moreover, in the
impugned order, the sufficiency of the bail conditions is also seen
properly considered by the jurisdictional authority. In the impugned
order, it is specifically mentioned that the conditions imposed on the
detenu are not sufficient to deter him from repeating criminal
activities. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the above regard will also fail.
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/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl)NO. 241 of 2025 :10: 2025:KER:37678
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 241/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO:-
DCTSR/7179/2024/C1 DATED 27/09/2024 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF KERALA
ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT 2007
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF PROPOSAL BEARING
NO.506/TDR/C9/2024 DATED 25/06/2024 BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TER NO 1391/TDR/OSD/2024 DATED 27/06/2024 BY THE
ONER OF POLICE FORWARDING EXHIBIT P1 PROPOSAL
/C9/2024 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISTRICT POLICE
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22/08/2024 FORWARDED
EXHIBIT P1 PROPOSAL BEARING NO. 506/TDR/C9/202
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AS G.O (RT) NO 3576/2024/HOME DATED
29/11/2024 CONFIRMING THE DETENTION OF THE
DETENUE
