[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Renjitha B vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:9569
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 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 77 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
RENJITHA B, AGED 41 YEARS
W/O SENIL RAJ SENIL BHAVANAM THAMARAKKULAM MEKKUM
MURI MAVELIKKARA ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
BY ADV SMT.ANAKHA BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR /DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
ALAPPUZHA , CIVIL STATION ,ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,O/O THE DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
4 THE CHAIRMAN,ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS,
PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680631
BY ADV.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.Crl. No.77/2026 :2: 2026:KER:9569
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of one Senil Raj, ('detenu' for the sake
of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1
order of detention dated 03.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under
Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory
Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order
dated 06.01.2026, 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 02.10.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before
the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, three cases in
which the detenu got himself involved have been considered by the
jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said
cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is
crime No.1953/2025 of Kundara Police Station, alleging commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and29(1) of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Adv. Anakha Babu, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
W.P.Crl. No.77/2026 :3: 2026:KER:9569
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind
and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further
submitted that prior to the passing of the detention order, although the
detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect
to the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority passed the said
order under an assumption that the detenu was under custody in the said
case. According to the counsel, as the detenu was on bail while passing the
impugned order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to
consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the detenu.
The learned counsel pointed out that a preventive detention order could be
legally passed against a person who is on bail only when the jurisdictional
authority arrives at a satisfaction that the conditions imposed on the detenu
at the time of granting bail to him are insufficient to deter him from being
involved in criminal activities. According to the counsel, in the case at
hand, the non-mentioning of the fact that the detenu was on bail and the
non-consideration of the bail conditions clamped on the detenu itself show
the non-application of mind of the detaining authority, and the same
vitiates the impugned order.
5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public
Prosecutor, submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. According to the Public Prosecutor, all the
procedural safeguards required to be complied with before and after
passing a detention order were scrupulously observed, and therefore, the
W.P.Crl. No.77/2026 :4: 2026:KER:9569
impugned order requires no interference.
6. Before considering the rival contentions taken, it is to be
noted that out of the three cases considered by the jurisdictional authority
to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No.1953/2025 of Kundara Police Station, alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and29(1)
of the NDPS Act. The incident which led to the registration of the said case
occurred on 17.09.2025, and the detenu, who is arrayed as the first
accused in the said case, was arrested on the same day. It was on
02.10.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, the District Police
Chief, Alappuzha, had forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. Subsequently, on 03.11.2025,
the detention order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated
above reveals that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the
proposal or in passing the detention order.
7. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that prior to the passing of the detention order, although
the detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with
respect to the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority passed
the said order under a wrong assumption that the detenu was under
custody in the said case. The learned counsel further submitted that, as
the detenu was on bail while passing the impugned order, it was incumbent
upon the jurisdictional authority to consider the sufficiency of the bail
conditions imposed upon the detenu. However, the same was also not done
W.P.Crl. No.77/2026 :5: 2026:KER:9569
in this case.
8. While considering the above contention, it is pertinent
to note that from the copy of the bail order produced for verification, it is
evident that the detenu was granted bail in the last case registered against
him on 29.10.2025, i.e., five days prior to the issuance of the Ext. P1
detention order. Since the detenu was on bail in connection with the last
prejudicial activity at the time of passing the detention order, the
jurisdictional authority ought to have been conscious of this fact. Further,
the authority was required to examine the nature and sufficiency of the bail
conditions imposed upon the detenu. When a detenu is already on bail
subject to conditions, it is incumbent upon the detaining authority to
consider whether such conditions are adequate to prevent him from
indulging in further criminal activities. Only upon due consideration of the
bail conditions and upon arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the same
were insufficient to restrain the detenu from engaging in similar activities
could the authority have lawfully proceeded to pass an order of preventive
detention.
9. However, in the present case, the impugned order is
conspicuously silent as to the fact that the detenu had been released on bail
in respect of the last prejudicial activity. There is also no indication that the
sufficiency or effectiveness of the bail conditions was considered. More
significantly, a reading of the impugned order reveals that it was passed
under the erroneous assumption that the detenu was in judicial custody in
connection with the last prejudicial activity. This clearly demonstrates a
non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, thereby
W.P.Crl. No.77/2026 :6: 2026:KER:9569
vitiating the subjective satisfaction arrived at and rendering the impugned
detention order legally unsustainable.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1
detention order is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur,
is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Senil Raj, 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, Viyyur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P.Crl. No.77/2026 :7: 2026:KER:9569
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 77 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF ORDER NO. SC6-10070/2025
DATED 03.11.2025 PASSED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SC 538/2022
DATED 25.11.2025 OF THE SESSIONS COURT
MAVELIKARA
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.SSA5/446/2025/HOME DATED 17.11.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN RC
NO. 504/2025 AS G.O.(RT)
NO.70/2026/HOME,DATED 06.01.2026
