Kerala High Court
Shareefa vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:80339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1371 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHAREEFA
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O MUHAMMED ALI, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH(H), TRIKULAM
PALATHINGAL, PANTHARANGADI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676306
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
SMT.UMMUL FADLA T.
SMT.HASANATH P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GIVERNMENT,
HOME & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
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
KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDANT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, RAMAVARMAPURAM, TRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P.
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:80339
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:80339
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
09.07.2025, passed against one Ameen S/o.Muhammed Ali, 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 12.09.2025, 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, Malappuram, on
16.06.2025, 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 rowdy' as defined under Section
2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether, six cases in which the detenu got involved were
considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P1 order of
detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:80339
last prejudicial activity is crime No.269/2025 of Thirurangadi Police
Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections
333, 126(2), 115(2), 110, 351(3), 296(b), 324(2) r/w 3(5) the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita ("BNS for short") and the detenu was arrayed as the 1st
accused in the said case.
4. We heard Smt.Reeha Khaderk, 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 is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the learned counsel, there is an
inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the
order of detention, and hence, the livelink between the last prejudicial
activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. 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 conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of
granting bail were sufficient to prevent the detenu from repeating
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:80339
criminal activities, an order of detention under the KAA(P) Act was not
at all necessitated, and hence, the said order is liable to be interfered
with.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that
there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1
detention order. According to the learned Government Pleader, as the
order of detention was passed within a reasonable time, the petitioner
could not be heard to say that the livelink between the last prejudicial
activity and the order of detention was snapped. The learned
Government Pleader 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. Likewise, it was
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 jurisdictional authority passed the impugned
order. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the order of
detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well
as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.
7. While considering the contention of the petitioner sticking to
the delay in passing the impugned order, it could not be ignored that
an order under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act has a significant impact
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:80339
on the personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual.
Therefore, such an order could not be passed in a casual manner;
instead, it can only be passed on credible materials and after arriving
at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction. Furthermore,
there exists no inflexible rule requiring a detention order to be issued
within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial act.
However, when there is an unreasonable delay in making the proposal
and passing the detention order, the same would undermine its validity,
particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for
the delay.
8. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in
the present case, it can be seen that the incident which led to the
registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on 22.03.2025.
The detenu who was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case was
arrested on 23.03.2025, and later he was released on bail only on
03.05.2025. The proposal for the initiation of proceedings under the
KAA(P) Act was mooted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on
16.06.2025. Virtually, the proposal was submitted after around forty-
four days from the date of release of the detenu from jail. The said
delay cannot be treated as unreasonable, particularly since six cases in
which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing the
impugned order. Therefore, some minimum time would have been
required for collecting the details of the said cases and for verification
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:80339
of records. Therefore, the short delay that occurred in mooting the
proposal is negligible. Likewise, after the proposal, Ext.P1 order was
passed on 09.07.2025 without any delay. Therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner, sticking to the delay, is only
liable to be discarded.
9. One of the main contentions 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 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
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:80339
necessitated nor legally permissible. Therefore, when a person is
already on bail, the compelling circumstances that necessitated
passing an order of detention 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 the
detenu was released on bail in the cases registered against him is
specifically adverted to. 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 recorded that
the detenu has blatantly violated the stringent bail conditions in earlier
cases and has been involved in subsequent crimes. A holistic reading of
the impugned order 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 not be sustained.
11. From a perusal of the records, we are further satisfied that
all the necessary procedural requirements before and after passing an
order under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act have been scrupulously
complied with in this case. We are further satisfied that the competent
WP(Crl.) No.1371 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:80339
authority passed the detention order after thoroughly verifying all the
materials placed by the sponsoring authority and after arriving at the
requisite objective, as well as subjective satisfaction. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the order passed under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)
Act is vitiated in any manner.
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.1371 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:80339
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1371/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCMPM/8027/2025-S1 DATED 9.07.2025
ALONG WITH RELEVANT RECORDS
