Kerala High Court
Suji S vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:67657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1161 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUJI S
AGED 27 YEARS
W/O SAJAN T, VATTAVILA, PIRAVILAKOM,
KOTTAPURAM P.O, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695521
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
WP(Crl) No.1161 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:67657
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST, PIN -
670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl) No.1161 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:67657
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 30.07.2025 passed against one Sajan @ Parunthu Sajan,
S/o.Thankachan, 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 wife of the detenu.
2. The records reveal that, it was after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a
proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram City, on 08.07.2025, 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, five cases in which the detenu got involved
were considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing
Ext.P1 order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.895/2025 of Kazhakuttom Police Station alleging the
WP(Crl) No.1161 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:67657
commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2),
118(1), 110, r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS")
and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.
4. We heard Sri. M.H Hanis, 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 involving in further
criminal activities. According to the learned counsel, the
sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by
the jurisdictional authority, and passed the impugned order in a
casual manner and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order after taking
WP(Crl) No.1161 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:67657
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 after proper
application of mind and after arriving at the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, the same warrants no
interference
7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised, it is to be noted that, as evident from the
records, an order of detention was earlier passed against the
detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, and this is the 2nd
order of detention passed against him. In terms of the earlier
detention order, the detenu had undergone six months of detention.
After the release of the detenu from jail on completion of the
period of detention, he approached this Court with a writ petition
and the earlier detention order was set aside by this Court.
However, the detenu again got involved in criminal activities and
hence, an detention order under KAA(P) Act was passed against
him. Anyhow, in brazen violation of the detention order, he got
involved in the last prejudicial activity which necessitated the
passing of the impugned order. A perusal of the order reveals that
WP(Crl) No.1161 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:67657
it was after being satisfied that the detenu is a person having a
high propensity to be involved in criminal activities, and there is no
other way out to restrain him from being involved in such
activities, the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order.
8. As evident from the records, the case registered
against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is
crime No.895/2025 of Kazhakuttom Police Station alleging the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2),
118(1), 110, r/w 3(5) of BNS and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st
accused in the said case. The incident which led to the registration
of the said case was occurred 08.06.2025. The records further
reveal that the detenu was arrested in that case on 03.07.2025 and
released on bail on 28.07.2025. It was on 08.07.2025, the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was mooted by
the sponsoring authority. Later the the impugned order was passed
on 30.07.2025. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly
indicates that there is no undue delay either in mooting the
proposal or in passing the detention order.
9. Undisputedly, Ext.P1 order of detention was passed while
the petitioner was on bail in the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity. Therefore, while passing the order, it was
incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to take note of the fact
WP(Crl) No.1161 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:67657
that the petitioner was on bail in the said case and also to consider
the sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on him by the court
while granting bail to him. When an effective and alternative
remedy exists to prevent a person from repeating criminal
activities, resorting to a detention order is neither warranted nor
permissible. Therefore, when the petitioner is on bail, it was
imperative for the jurisdictional authority to consider whether
there exists any bail condition that would suffice to deter the
detenu from engaging in criminal activities further.
10. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the facts in
the present case, it can be seen that the impugned order, the fact
that the detenu was released on bail in the last case registered
against him is specifically adverted to. In the impugned order, it is
clearly mentioned that all the proceedings already initiated against
the detenu under ordinary criminal law did not yield any result,
and the detenu is involving in criminal activities again,
disregarding the bail conditions imposed in the earlier cases.
Similarly, in the order it is categorically stated that bail conditions
alone are not sufficient to deter the detenu from involving in
criminal activities.
11. A holistic reading of the impugned order further reveals
that the act of the detenu violating the bail conditions and being
WP(Crl) No.1161 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:67657
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 conditions imposed on the detenu at the time
of passing the impugned order. The impugned order reveals that
the antecedents of the detenu and his propensity to be involved in
criminal activities, disregarding the earlier bail orders, persuaded
the jurisdictional authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction
regarding the necessity of passing the detention order. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
above regard will certainly fail.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner
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.1161 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:67657
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1161/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
DCTVM/11271/2025-C5 DATED 30.07.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL
CONFIRMATION DATED 11.08.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 11.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
DETENU BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 11.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
