Kerala High Court
Soumya vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:68852
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 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1200 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SOUMYA
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O SANTHOSH, PARAKKAL VEEDU, NARAYANAMANGALAM,
PULLUT, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680663
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 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:68852
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR,, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:68852
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition has been directed against an order of
detention dated 08.08.2025, passed against one Akhil @ Bonda, S/o.
Santhosh 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.
2. The records available before us disclose that on
21.06.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief,
Thrissur Rural, 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 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. For
passing the order of detention the authority reckoned six cases in
which the detenu got involved. Out of the said six cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.860/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, alleging commission of
the offences punishable under Section 196 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "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.
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:68852
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 in the KAA(P) Act. According to the counsel, there is
inordinate delay in mooting the proposal by the sponsoring authority
as well as in passing the impugned order by the competent authority,
after the last prejudicial activity rendering the live link between the
last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention snapped. The
learned counsel urged that, if the sponsoring authority was having
any bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal
activities by the detenu, the authority would have acted swiftly in
making the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act.
Hence, the impugned order warrants interference on the ground of
delay and is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government
Pleader, asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in
submitting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after
the last prejudicial activity. However, some minimal delay is
inevitable while passing a detention order, especially when it is the
duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice
principles while passing such an order. Moreover, a reasonable time
would be necessary for collecting the details of the cases in which
the detenu is involved, and minimal delay in mooting the proposal
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:68852
and passing the order is quite natural and hence justifiable.
6. According to the learned Government Pleader, the detaining
authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no
interference is warranted.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced
and have perused the records.
8. The records show that the detenu was classified as a
"known rowdy", considering his recurrent involvement in six cases.
While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the
delay that occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and in
passing the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section
3(1) of KAA(P) Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as
fundamental rights of an individual. So such an order could not be
passed in a casual manner instead, it can only be passed on credible
materials 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 activity. However, when there is undue delay in
making the proposal and passing the detention order, the same
would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing and
plausible explanation is offered for the delay.
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:68852
9. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the
present case it can be seen that, the case registered against the
detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.860/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, alleging commission of
the offences punishable under Section 196 r/w 3(5) of BNS. The last
prejudicial activity was committed on 28.04.2025. From the records,
it is evident that after the commission of the said crime, the accused
was arrested on 14.05.2025 and he was released on bail on the same
day.
10. The records further reveal that the District Police Chief,
Thrissur Rural, submitted the proposal to the competent authority
for initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act on
21.06.2025. Therefore, it is decipherable that there is a delay of
around two months in submitting the proposal after the commission
of the last prejudicial activity. The said delay cannot be justified as
necessary for observing natural justice principles.
11. Curiously, in the impugned order itself, it is admitted
that there occurred some delay in mooting the proposal. The reason
for the said delay shown in the impugned order is that additional
time was required to collect the details of the cases in which the
detenu was involved. In the case at hand, six cases formed the basis
for proposing and issuing the detention order. Moreover, the present
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:68852
detention order was passed after the expiry of the period of an
earlier externment order passed against the detenu. After the expiry
of the said period of externment, the detenu got involved in two
cases, which necessitated the passing of the present detention order.
Therefore, the details of the four cases, which formed the basis for
passing the earlier externment order were readily available and
could have been obtained without delay, given the technological
upgradation attained by the law enforcement authority. Therefore,
the explanation that additional time was required to collect the
details of the cases in which the detenu got involved is not
justifiable.
12. If the Superintendent of Police who mooted the proposal
was having bonafide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-
social activities by the detenu, definitely he would have acted swiftly
after the last prejudicial activity. In the case at hand, as already
stated, there is a delay of around two months in mooting the
proposal for the detention order. Therefore, nobody could be
blamed if it is found that the live link between the last prejudicial
activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The delay of
around two months in mooting the proposal itself shows that the
proposed officer was not having any genuine apprehension
regarding the immediate repetition of criminal activities by the
accused.
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:68852
13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the delay in
mooting the proposal is unreasonable and unjustifiable. If the true
objective was to prevent the detenu from engaging in anti-social
activities, the authority ought to have acted with greater alacrity in
submitting the proposal and issuing the consequent order.
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the live
link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
detention has been snapped.
14. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Kannur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Akhil @ Bonda
forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any
other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl)No.1200 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:68852
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1200/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTSR/8742/2025-C4 DATED
08.08.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
