[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammad Vapputty vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:9148
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 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 112 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMAD VAPPUTTY
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O AVARATHEKUTTY, KARAPPAM HOUSE, OLLUKARA
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680655
BY ADVS.
SRI.JITHIN BABU A
SHRI.ARUN SAMUEL
SHRI.ANOOD JALAL K.J.
SMT.DONA MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(HOME), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680631
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680651
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR,
PIN - 670004
W.P(Crl). No.112 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:9148
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.112 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:9148
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention
dated 14.10.2025 passed against one Shahid, under Section 3(1) of the
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for
brevity). The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. The detention
order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 16.12.2025,
and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six
months from the date of detention.
2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, on 25.08.2025,
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 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether, four cases were considered by the detaining
authority for issuing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.676/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station, registered alleging commission
of offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74
and 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") and the detenu
was arrayed as the sole accused in the said case.
W.P(Crl). No.112 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:9148
4. We have heard Sri. Jithin Babu A., the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order of detention was passed without proper application of mind
and on improper consideration of facts. According to the counsel, there
is an 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 bonafide 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 the KAA(P) Act
immediately after the registration of case with respect to the last
prejudicial activity. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference
on the ground of delay and is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor,
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
W.P(Crl). No.112 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:9148
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 and passing the order is quite natural and hence
justifiable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the detaining
authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction, and 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 involvement in four criminal cases. Out of the
said cases, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the
last prejudicial activity is crime No.676/2025. 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 act. However, when
there is undue delay in making the proposal and passing the detention
W.P(Crl). No.112 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:9148
order, the same would undermine its validity, particularly when no
convincing or plausible explanation is offered for the delay.
9. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the
present case, it can be seen that the incident that led to the registration
of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on
29.06.2025, and the detenu, who is arrayed as the sole accused in the
said case, was arrested only on 27.07.2025. Subsequently, he was
released on bail on 27.08.2025. As evident from the records, the District
Police Chief, Thrissur City, submitted the proposal to the competent
authority for initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)
Act only on 25.08.2025. Therefore, it is evident that there is a delay of
more than one and a half months in submitting the proposal after the
commission of the last prejudicial activity. While considering the
question, the said delay is fatal or not, first of all, it is to be noted that
after the commission of the offence in the last case registered against
the detenu, he went absconded. Thereafter, it was only on 27.07.2025, he
was arrested. As the detenu absconded after the commission of the
offence, there was every likelihood of his repeating criminal activities by
him. Therefore, the sponsoring authority should have been more
vigilant in mooting the proposal without any delay.
10. Moreover, in the case at hand, only four cases formed the
basis for proposing and issuing the detention order. The details of those
cases were readily available and could have been obtained without delay,
W.P(Crl). No.112 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:9148
given the technological upgradation attained by the law enforcement
authorities. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the delay in
mooting the proposal is unreasonable and unjustifiable. If the District
Police Chief was having bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition
of anti-social activities by the detenu, definitely, he would have acted
swiftly and with great alacrity in submitting the proposal. Therefore, we
are of the view that the delay in forwarding the proposal will certainly
snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
the impugned order.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 detention
order is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Kannur, is
directed to release the detenu, Sri. Shahid, 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 Jail, Kannur forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.112 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:9148
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 112 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE DETENTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 14/10/2025.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16/12/2025 APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF PRINCIPAL
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED
11/11/2025.
