[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sunitha S vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:9178
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. 80 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SUNITHA S.,AGED 45 YEARS
W/O SRI. BINU, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEETIL,
KARIPPUMMOOLA, PAMAMCODE, PALLICHAL WARD,
PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695501
BY ADVS. SRI.J.VISHNU
SMT.ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT,
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION,
KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695043
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CITY, POLICE GROUND, CV RAMAN PILLAI ROAD,
PANAVILA,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695014
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR,
THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN 680631
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ANAS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
W.P(Crl.) No.80/2026 : 2: 2026:KER:9178
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl.) No.80/2026 : 3: 2026:KER:9178
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
03.09.2025 passed against one Nithin B. S. @ Kannan, S/o. Binu (herein
after referred to as the 'detenu'), under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of 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 12.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered
to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of
detention.
2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a proposal
dated 31.07.2025, forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram City, that the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd
respondent, initiated proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of
the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, seven cases in which the detenu got 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.632/2025 of Nemom Police Station,
alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
3. We heard Sri. Vishnu J., the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Sri. K.A.Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
W.P(Crl.) No.80/2026 : 4: 2026:KER:9178
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
detention order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
proper application of mind. It was further submitted that the jurisdictional
authority disregarded the fact that the detenu had already executed a bond
for good behaviour under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. According to the learned counsel, the said measure
was sufficient to prevent the detenu from involving himself in criminal
activities and therefore an order of detention was unwarranted.
5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
detention order was passed after due application of mind and upon arriving
at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the
learned Public Prosecutor, it was only after being fully satisfied that
proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS would not be sufficient to deter
the detenu from engaging in criminal activities that the jurisdictional
authority resorted to passing an order under the preventive detention law.
Therefore, it was submitted that no interference is warranted with the
impugned order.
6. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention was
passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent
involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As already stated, seven
cases in which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing
the detention order. The incident that led to the registration of the case
with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 03.05.2025. It was
W.P(Crl.) No.80/2026 : 5: 2026:KER:9178
on 14.05.2025, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in
the said case. Later, the detenu got bail in the said case on 07.07.2025.
Thereafter, on 31.07.2025, a proposal was forwarded by the sponsoring
authority for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the
detenu. It was on 03.09.2025 the impugned order was passed. The
sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there was no
unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the
detention order. We are not oblivious of the fact that although the incident
that led to the registration of the last case against the detenu occurred on
03.05.2025, the proposal was submitted by the sponsoring authority only on
31.07.2025. However, while considering the said delay, it cannot be
ignored that from 14.05.2025 till 07.07.2025, the detenu was under judicial
custody. As the detenu was under judicial custody during that period, there
was no basis for any apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal
activities by him. Moreover, the proposal was forwarded without much
delay after the release of detenu on bail. Therefore, the short delay that
occurred in mooting the proposal is of little consequence.
7. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority failed to take into account the
relevant and vital circumstance that the detenu had already executed a
bond for good behaviour under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. According to the learned counsel, the said
measure was sufficient to prevent the detenu from involving in further
criminal activities. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the
bond had been executed prior to the issuance of the detention order, the
W.P(Crl.) No.80/2026 : 6: 2026:KER:9178
passing of a detention order was wholly unnecessary. While considering the
said contention, first of all, it is to be noted that proceedings under Section
129 of the BNSS, and action under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act operate in
different spheres. Under Section 129 of the BNSS, a person is only called
to furnish security for his good behaviour. On the other hand, under Section
3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, a person who has criminal antecedents is detained
so as to prevent him from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, action
under the KAA(P) Act is more effective and operates in a totally different
sphere. It is for the detaining authority to decide whether action under
Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is necessary against a person who had
already executed a bond under Section 129 of the BNSS, and proceedings
under Section 129 of the BNSS will in no way preclude the jurisdictional
authority from initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act.
8. Moreover, from the impugned order, it is evident that the
jurisdictional authority was fully cognizant of the fact that the detenu had
executed a bond under Section 129 of the BNSS. Likewise, the sufficiency
of the said bond was also duly considered by the jurisdictional authority
while passing the detention order. In the detention order, it is specifically
stated that since 2019, the detenu has been consistently involved in serious
criminal activities. It is further stated that a report was submitted against
the detenu proposing the initiation of security proceedings under Section
129 of the BNSS to deter him from repeating such criminal activities, and
that a peace bond was executed by him before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate Court on 30.07.2025 for a period of three years. Moreover, it is
stated that, based on the detenu's past criminal activities, it can be
W.P(Crl.) No.80/2026 : 7: 2026:KER:9178
concluded that even if he is subjected to security measures under Section
129 of the BNSS, no change would be effected in his criminal attitude. A
holistic reading of the impugned order reveals that the detenu's continued
involvement in criminal activities, in disregard of the bail conditions
imposed by the courts while granting bail, constituted one of the materials
relied upon by the jurisdictional authority in arriving at the requisite
subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order.
9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the jurisdictional
authority is justified in passing the detention order notwithstanding the
subsistence of bond executed under Section 129 of BNSS, by the detenu.
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 fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P(Crl.) No.80/2026 : 8: 2026:KER:9178
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 80 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED FROM
THE COURT OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NO.
661/2025/MCS IN MC-30/25 DATED
26.07.2025 ALONG WITH A TYPED COPY
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ORDER
OF THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE DATED
03.09.2025 ENCLOSING REASONS FOR ARREST
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
GOVERNMENT APPROVING DETENTION DATED
15.09.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT LETTER
FORWARDING THE DETENTION PROPOSAL AND
CONNECTED RECORDS TO THE KAAPA ADVISORY
BOARD, DATED 16.09.2025
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KAAPA
ADVISORY BOARD DATED 31.10.2025
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
GOVERNMENT G.O.RT.NO.3896/2025/HOME
DATED 12.11.2025
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY WITHOUT
ANNEXURES DATED 12.12.2025
