Kerala High Court
Laila Beevi M vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:78011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1341 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
LAILA BEEVI M
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O BASHEER, PUTHUVALVILA VEETTIL, NES BLOCK,
MUDAPURAM, KIZHUVILAM, CHIRAYANKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695304
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PIN - 695033
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN -
682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 670004
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:78011
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:78011
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition has been directed against an order of
detention dated 27.05.2025, passed against one Sabir, S/o. Basheer
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 detention order stands approved by the Government
vide order dated 30.07.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be
detained for a period of six months from the date of execution of the
order.
2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, on
16.04.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the
KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. 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. For
passing the order of detention, the authority considered seven cases in
which the detenu was involved. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.284/2025 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),
118(2), 109, 324(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:78011
"BNS").
3. We have heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
impugned order is vitiated, as the same is passed without proper
application of mind and disregarding the procedural safeguards
envisaged under the KAA(P) Act. The main contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that, though the detention order
was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with
the last prejudicial activity, in the impugned order, it is nowhere
mentioned that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released
on bail in the said case. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v.
Union of India and another, [1991 (1) SCC 128], the learned
counsel contended that an order of detention can be validly passed
against a person who is already in judicial custody in connection with
another case only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in
Kamarunnissa's case (supra) by the Supreme Court.
5. In response, Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader,
asserted that the order of detention has been passed after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well
as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:78011
Pleader, it was after being satisfied that there is every chance of the
detenu getting released on bail in the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity, the order of detention was passed and
hence, it cannot be said that there is any non-application of mind on
the part of the jurisdictional authority while passing the impugned
order.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and
have perused the records. While considering the rival contentions, the
first and foremost aspect that cannot be overlooked is that, in the case
at hand, the proceedings for taking action under the KAA(P) Act were
initiated, and the order of detention was passed against the detenu
while he was under judicial custody in connection with the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity.
7. Undisputedly, a detention order can validly be passed even
when the detenu is under judicial custody in connection with the last
prejudicial activity. No law precludes the competent authority from
passing a detention order against a person who is under judicial
custody. However, when actions under ordinary laws are sufficient to
deter a person from being involved in criminal activities, an action
under preventive detention laws is not at all warranted. This is
particularly so since an order of preventive detention is a drastic
measure that seriously affects the fundamental as well as personal
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:78011
rights of a citizen.
8. While coming to the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in cases where the detenu is in judicial custody,
detention order can validly be passed only on the satisfaction of the
triple test laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa's case
(cited supra), it is to be noted that in the said decision, the Supreme
Court observed as noted below:
"Even in the case of a person in custody a detention
order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the
order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody (2)
if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable
materials placed before him (a) that there is a real
possibility of his being released on bail and (b) that on
being so released he would in probability indulged in
prejudicial activity and (3) if it is essential to detain him to
prevent him from doing so. If the authority passes an order
after recording his satisfaction in this regard such an order
would be valid."
9. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in
Veeramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu [1994 (2) SCC 337] and in
Union of India v. Paul Manickam [2003 (8) SCC 342].
10. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law laid down by the
Supreme Court, while coming to the case at hand, it can be seen that,
the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.284/2025 of Kadakkavoor Police
Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 324(3) r/w 3(5) of the BNS.
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:78011
The detenu, who was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case, was
arrested on 21.04.2025. The impugned order was passed on
27.05.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody. Even then,
the fact that the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with
the last prejudicial activity is not specifically adverted to in the
impugned order. Moreover, it is curious to note that in the impugned
order, it is mentioned nowhere that there is a real possibility of the
detenu being released on bail, and if so released, there is a likelihood
of him being involved in criminal activities. As already discussed, in
order to pass an order of detention against a person who is in judicial
custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the
jurisdictional authority should enter into a satisfaction that, based on
the reliable materials placed before the authority, it has reason to
believe that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on
bail and that on being so released he would in probability indulge in
prejudicial activity. However, in the case at hand, such a satisfaction is
not seen entered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the
impugned order.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 order
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur,
Thirssur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri.Sabir forthwith, if his
detention is not required in connection with any other case.
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:78011
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, Thirssur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1341 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:78011
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1341/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTVM/6675/2025-C1 DATED 27.05.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
THROUGH 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
THROUGH 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
12.09.2025 RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATE
17.09.2025 TO EXT P4
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE
GO(RT).NO.2573/2025/HOME DATED
30.07.2025
