[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shahana P vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:11389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 131 OF 2026
PETITIONER
SHAHANA P., AGED 23 YEARS
W/O YASIN SAJAR, POTTACHIRA, CHETHALLUR P.O.,
THACHANATTUKARA-II, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678583
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
SHRI.MUHAMMAD A. P.
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
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
W.P(Crl.) No.131/2026 :2: 2026:KER:11389
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI.K.A.ANAS, P.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl.) No.131/2026 :3: 2026:KER:11389
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of Yasin Sajeer @ Yasin Sajar ('detenu'
for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed
against Ext.P1 detention order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the 2nd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The detention order
stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 23.11.2025, and the
detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year from the
date of execution of the order.
2. The records reveal that, on 22.08.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, 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 goonda' as
defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, four cases in
which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for passing the detention order.
3. Earlier, a detention order was passed against the detenu,
and after completing the period of detention provided in the said detention
order, the detenu again got involved in the last prejudicial activity, which
W.P(Crl.) No.131/2026 :4: 2026:KER:11389
led to the passing of the present detention order. Out of the said cases, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.817/2025 of Alathur Police Station, alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, 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 was passed without proper application of mind and without
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
According to the counsel, out of the copy of the relied-upon documents
served on the detenu, some of the documents were not legible. The learned
counsel urged that the lapse on the part of the detaining authority in not
serving the legible copies of the relied upon documents prejudiced him as
he could not file an effective representation against the detention order
before the Advisory Board. On these premises, it was urged that the
impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor,
submitted that the order of detention was passed after complying with all
the necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the copies of all the relevant
records were furnished to the detenu, and the detenu was duly informed of
his right to file a representation against the detention order before the
Government as well as the Advisory Board and hence, no interference is
W.P(Crl.) No.131/2026 :5: 2026:KER:11389
warranted in the impugned order.
7. The records reveal that the detention order was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the
detenu in criminal activities. As already stated, four cases in which the
detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order.
Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is Crime No.817/2025 of Alathur Police Station, alleging the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of
the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case
occurred on 14.07.2025, and he was arrested on the same day. Since then,
he has been under judicial custody. It was on 22.08.2025, while the detenu
was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the KAA(P) Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority.
Subsequently, on 16.09.2025, the detention order was passed. The
sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there is no delay either
in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.
8. As already mentioned, the main contention of the petitioner is
that the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu were
illegible. The copies of the relied upon documents served on the detenu
were also produced along with this writ petition to substantiate the said
contention. In order to verify the veracity of the said contention, we have
examined the case file made available to us by the learned Public
Prosecutor. On verification, we are convinced that the copies of some of
the relied-upon documents, which find a place in the case file itself, are not
W.P(Crl.) No.131/2026 :6: 2026:KER:11389
legible.
9. The obligation of the detaining authority to furnish legible
copies of relied-upon documents to the detenu is not a mere formality. Only
when the said procedure is scrupulously complied with, the detenu can file
an effective representation before the Advisory Board and the Government.
The right of the detenu to file an effective representation before the
Government as well as the Advisory Board is a constitutional right
guaranteed under Article 22(5) and also a statutory right. Therefore, it is
the duty of the detaining authority to ensure that the copies of the
impugned order, as well as the relevant documents which are furnished to
the detenu at the time of effecting his arrest, are legible so as to enable him
to approach the Advisory Board as well as the Government, to make an
effective representation.
10. In the case at hand, it is established that copies of some of
the relied-upon documents supplied on the detenu were not legible, making
him incapacitated to file an effective representation. The said serious lapse
is a ground to interfere with the impugned order. An order of detention,
under the KAA(P) Act, has wide ramifications as far as the personal as well
as the fundamental rights of an individual are concerned. Therefore, the
detaining authority should have acted with much alacrity in ensuring that
all the procedural formalities were adhered to.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of
detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur,
W.P(Crl.) No.131/2026 :7: 2026:KER:11389
Thirssur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Yasin Sajeer @ Yasin Sajar,
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, Thirssur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P(Crl.) No.131/2026 :8: 2026:KER:11389
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 131 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
DCPKD/11816/2025-SC1 DATED 16.09.2025 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT).NO.
4033/2025/HOME DATED 23.11.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
30.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
EVIDENCING THE ISSUANCE OF EXT P3
