Kerala High Court
Kripa V.M vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:68756
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. 1199 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KRIPA V.M
AGED 27 YEARS
W/O SAJAN, SAJAN NIVAS, MALANCHANNY, THOZHUKKAL,
NEYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695525
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.1199 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:68756
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 BEEN FINALLY
HEARDQ 16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1199 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:68756
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 26.04.2025 passed against one Sajan, S/o. Rajan, 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. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government
vide order dated 30.06.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be
detained for a period of one year 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, Thiruvananthapuram Rural,
on 22.02.2025, 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, three cases in which the detenu got involved
were considered by the jurisdictional authority for issuing the Ext.P1
order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with
WP(Crl.) No.1199 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:68756
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.189/2025 of
Neyyattinkara Police Station alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 192(3), 190, 296(b), 115(2),
118(1), 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") and the
detenu is arrayed as the 4th 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 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, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not
properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and passed the
impugned order in a casual manner. The learned counsel further
submits that there is an unreasonable delay on the part of the District
Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, in forwarding the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, and therefore, the
WP(Crl.) No.1199 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:68756
said delay will snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of detention.
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. He further submitted that there is no
unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in passing the
Ext.P1 detention order after the date of 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.
Similarly, the learned Government Pleader submitted 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, warrants no interference.
7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident
from the records, the case registered against the detenu with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime crime No.189/2025 of
WP(Crl.) No.1199 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:68756
Neyyattinkara Police Station alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 192(3), 190, 296(b), 115(2),
118(1), 109(1) of BNS. The last prejudicial activity was committed on
27.01.2025, and the detenu was arrested in the said case on
20.02.2025. He got bail in the said case on 21.04.2025. However, he
got released from jail on 24.04.2025. The proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was forwarded by the sponsoring
authority on 22.02.2025, i.e., after 25 days of the last prejudicial
activity. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly shows that
there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in
passing the order. As already stated, three cases formed the basis for
passing the impugned order. Therefore, some minimum time is
required to collect the details of the said cases and for the verification
of records. Therefore, the short delay occurred in mooting the proposal
after the commission of the last prejudicial activity is liable to be
discarded.
8. Moreover, 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. However, it is true that the conditions imposed by the
court while granting bail are not extracted in the impugned order. But
there is no requirement of law that the bail conditions shall be
WP(Crl.) No.1199 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:68756
extracted in the order of detention. But what is required is that the
jurisdictional authority should consider the sufficiency of bail
conditions imposed in the bail order. 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
accused is involved in criminal activities again and again, 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. From a perusal of the records, we are 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
WP(Crl.) No.1199 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:68756
with in this case. We are further satisfied that the competent 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.1199 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:68756
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1199/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTVM/4186/2025-S13 DATED 26.04.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT).NO.2213 /
2025/HOME DATED 30.06.2025
