[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Majida .K vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:31649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 502 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
MAJIDA .K, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. RAFI, S A MANZIL,
KANAKKUZHI, EENTHIVILA, KONNIYOOR MURI, PERUMKULAM
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695575
BY ADVS. SMT.SHYNI DAS J.S.
SRI.RINU. S. ASWAN
SMT.GOPIKA H.H
SHRI.YADHU S ASWAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
3 STATE POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695010
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
5 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA
SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682026
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,CENTRAL PRISON AND
CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
BY ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
08.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.502 of 2026 :2:
2026:KER:31649
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
29.11.2025 passed against one Muhammed Habeeb Rahman (herein after
referred to as '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. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board,
the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated
28.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of
six months with effect from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that on 12.11.2025, a proposal was submitted
by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under 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, nine cases in which the detenu got involved have been
considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1 detention order.
Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No.990/2025 of Vilappilsala Police Station, alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2),
118(1), 109 r/w 3(5) of BNS.
W.P.(Crl.) No.502 of 2026 :3:
2026:KER:31649
4. We heard Smt. Shyni Das J.S., the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of
the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India [1991 (1) SCC 128],
contends that when a detenu is already in judicial custody in connection with
the last prejudicial activity, a detention order under preventive detention
laws can be validly issued only if the authority satisfies the triple test laid
down in the said judgment. According to the counsel, since the impugned
order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with
the last prejudicial activity, the detaining authority was required to satisfy
itself, on the basis of reliable material placed before it, that there existed a
real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that, upon such
release, he would in all probability engage in prejudicial activities. The
counsel further contends that although Ext.P1 order records that the detenu
was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the
question of the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail has not been
properly considered. It was further submitted that while passing Ext.P1
order, the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that there was
a time gap of more than one year between the last prejudicial activity and the
last but one case registered against the detenu, and the said time gap itself
would show that the detenu is not a person having the propensity to be
involved in criminal activities repeatedly. On these premises, it was urged
that the detention order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1
detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as
W.P.(Crl.) No.502 of 2026 :4:
2026:KER:31649
subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader, the
detention order was passed by the competent authority upon being fully
satisfied that such detention was the only effective means to prevent the
detenu from repeating criminal activities. It was further contended that the
authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody in
connection with the last prejudicial activity and it was only upon being
satisfied that there was every likelihood of the detenu being released on bail
and that, if so released, he would in all probability indulge in further criminal
activities, that the order of detention came to be passed. According to the
learned Government Pleader, therefore, the order of detention will legally
sustain irrespective of the fact that the detenu was under judicial custody in
connection with the last prejudicial activity while the impugned order was
passed. Therefore, it was submitted that no interference is warranted with
the impugned order.
7. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main
question that revolves around this Writ Petition is whether an order of
detention under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act can be validly passed against
a person who is under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial
activity. While answering the said question, it is to be noted that, through a
series of judicial pronouncements rendered by the Supreme Court as well as
by this Court, it is well settled that there is no legal impediment in passing an
order of detention against a person who is under judicial custody in
connection with the last prejudicial activity. However, an order of detention
against a person who is in judicial custody in connection with the last
prejudicial activity cannot be passed in a causal manner. Undisputedly, an
order of detention under the KAA(P) Act is a drastic measure against a citizen
as it heavily impacts his personal as well as fundamental rights. When an
W.P.(Crl.) No.502 of 2026 :5:
2026:KER:31649
effective and alternative remedy exists to prevent a person from repeating
criminal activities, resorting to preventive detention is neither warranted nor
permissible. When a detenu is in jail in connection with the last prejudicial
activity, obviously, there is no imminent possibility of being involved in
criminal activities. Therefore, before passing a detention order in respect of a
person who is in jail, the concerned authority must satisfy itself that there is
a real possibility that the detenu will be released on bail, and if so released,
he will indulge in prejudicial activities again, if not detained. In short, the
circumstances that necessitate the passing of such an order must be reflected
in the order itself.
8. In Kamarunnissa's case (cited supra), the Supreme Court made it
clear that a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly
passed even in the case of a person in custody (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 its 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 reverting to the facts in the present case, it can be
seen that the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last
W.P.(Crl.) No.502 of 2026 :6:
2026:KER:31649
prejudicial activity is crime No.990/2025 of Vilappilsala Police Station,
alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 296(b),
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 r/w 3(5) of BNS. The incident that led to the
registration of the said case occurred on 24.10.2025, and the detenu, who
was arrayed as the first accused in the said case, was arrested on
30.10.2025. It was while he was under judicial custody in connection with the
said case that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act was
forwarded and the impugned order was passed.
11. In Ext.P1 detention order, it is specifically stated that at the time
of passing the said order, the detenu was under judicial custody in
connection with the case registered against him with respect to the last
prejudicial activity. Therefore, it is decipherable that the detaining authority
was fully cognizant of the fact that the detenu was in custody at the time
when it passed Ext.P1 order. Similarly, in Ext.P1 order, it is further recorded
that there is every possibility of the detenu getting bail in the said case, and
if he is released on bail, he would be involved in criminal activities again,
undermining the bail conditions that would be imposed on him. Likewise, the
detention order itself records that the detenu is a person who has scant
regard for the bail conditions imposed upon him and that such conditions are
insufficient to prevent him from indulging in further anti-social activities.
Evidently, the impugned order reflects that there is a proper application of
mind and, based on the materials available on record, the detaining authority
subjectively satisfied that there is a reason to believe that there is a
possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that, on so released, the
detenu will in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities undermining the
bail conditions.
W.P.(Crl.) No.502 of 2026 :7:
2026:KER:31649
12. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact
that there was a time gap of more than one year between the last prejudicial
activity and the last but one case registered against the detenu, and
therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is
vitiated. It is true that the last prejudicial activity was committed by the
detenu on 24.10.2025, whereas the date of occurrence of the last but one
case registered against him (crime No.439/2024 of Vilappilsala Police
Station) is on 18.05.2024. Thus, there is indeed a gap of more than one year
between the two incidents. However, it cannot be ignored that the incidents
that led to the registration of both cases occurred within seven years of the
date of the detention order, and hence, both cases are qualified to classify the
detenu as a 'known goonda'. Therefore, the time gap between the two cases
highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of little consequence
in the context of the impugned order.
In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has
not made out any ground for interference. Hence, the writ petition fails and
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P.(Crl.) No.502 of 2026 :8:
2026:KER:31649
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 502 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCTVM/17857/2025-C1 DATED 29.11.25
Exhibit P2 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
CONFIRMATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 28.01.26
