Kerala High Court
Naseera Mansoor vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:79398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1350 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NASEERA MANSOOR
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O MANSOOR MUHAMMED, FATHIMAS,
THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670017
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MOHAMMED NIHAD
SHRI.P.K.NAUSHAD
SMT.SIMRAN
SHRI.NITHEESH.M
SHRI.SUSHANTH.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION , COLLECTRATE ROAD , KANNUR,
PIN - 670002
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KANNUR CITY, TALAP, KANNUR, KERALA,
PIN - 670002
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682026
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:79398
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS (GP).
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:79398
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 24.06.2025 passed against one Nihad Muhammed,
S/o.Mansoor Muhammed, 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 26.08.2025, 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, a
proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur City, on
21.04.2025, 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)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether, five cases in which the detenu got involved
were considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing
Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said five cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:79398
312/2025 of Kannur Town Police Station, alleging the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 8, 20(B)IIA, 22(b) r/w 29 of
the NDPS Act, and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the
said case.
4. We heard Sri.Mohammed Nihad, 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 the Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without
proper application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that
the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention
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. According to the learned counsel, as the bail
conditions imposed on the detenu itself were sufficient to prevent
the detenu from repeating criminal activities, an order of detention
under the preventive detention law was not at all warranted. The
learned counsel further submitted that the detenu is totally
innocent of the allegations in the last case registered against him
and hence, the jurisdictional authority ought not have considered
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:79398
the said case for arriving at its subjective as well as objective
satisfaction. On these premises, it was argued that Ext.P1 is liable
to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order after taking
note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the
last prejudicial activity and after being satisfied that the bail
conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not
sufficient to prevent him from being involved in criminal activities.
The learned Government Pleader further urged that the order of
detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority upon proper
application of mind and after arriving at the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that the incident that
led to the registration of the case with respect to the last
prejudicial activity occurred on 07.03.2025, and the detenu was
arrested on 08.03.2025. It was on 21.04.2025, while the detenu was
under judicial custody in connection with the said case, the
sponsoring authority mooted the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against him. Subsequently, it
was on 24.06.2025, Ext.P1 order of detention was passed. From
the sequence of the events narrated above, it is demonstrably clear
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:79398
that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal
or in passing the detention order.
8. As already stated, 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 learned 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
has to be 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 restrain him from being
involved in criminal activities. 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 the detenu was released on bail in the
case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is specifically adverted to. Moreover, in the impugned
order, it is mentioned that the present bail conditions are not
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:79398
sufficient to prevent the detenu from repeating criminal activities.
In the impugned order, it is clearly mentioned that the accused is in
the habit of being involved in criminal activities repeatedly,
disregarding the bail conditions imposed in the earlier cases. 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, it cannot be said that the jurisdictional
authority did not consider the sufficiency of the bail condition
imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail to him. The
impugned order reveals that the antecedents of the detenu, which
included criminal activities and the undermining of earlier bail
orders, persuaded the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective
satisfaction regarding the necessity of passing the order. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above
regard will fail.
9. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detenu is totally innocent in the case last
registered against him. According to the counsel, as the detenu is
totally innocent in that case, the said case ought not have been
considered by the jurisdictional authority for arriving at its
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. While considering the
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:79398
said contention, it is pertinent to note that the last case registered
against the detenu and considered by the jurisdictional authority
for passing the detention order is crime No.312/2025 of Kannur
Town Police Station. The allegation in the said case is that the
detenu, along with his companions, were found in possession of
2.72 gms of MDMA and 0.22 gms of Ganja for the purpose of sale in
contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The detenu is
arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case, and there is a specific
allegation that the offence was committed in pursuance of a
conspiracy hatched between all the accused, including the detenu.
The jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after being
satisfied that the detenu had active involvement in the said crime.
It is well settled that there is no requirement in law that a case
should culminate in a conviction or a final report should be
invariably filed for treating the same as a qualified case for the
purpose of preventive detention. The jurisdiction exercised under
the KAA(P) Act is a jurisdiction of suspicion. Likewise, the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the jurisdictional authority,
being based on relevant materials, cannot be lightly interfered
with. We are therefore of the considered view that the satisfaction
of the jurisdictional authority regarding the involvement of the
detenu in the last prejudicial activity cannot be faulted with.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner
WP(Crl)No.1350 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:79398
has not made out any case for 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.1350 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:79398
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1350/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
NO. DCKNR/4865/2025-SS1 DATED
24.06.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.
622/SB/TDR/2025/KC DATED 21.04.2025
