[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Selvi vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:11390
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. 142 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SELVI
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O MURUKESHAN , MANIMUTHU NAGAR, KOZHINJAMPARA
P.O, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555
BY ADVS.
SRI.AKHIL BINOY
SHRI SANIN V.U.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
YAKKARA ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN - 678014
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOZINJAMAPARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678555
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.142 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:11390
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
19.12.2025, passed against one Hariram, the 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.
2. The records reveal that on 22.11.2025, after considering the
detenu's recurrent involvement in criminal activities, the District Police
Chief, Palakkad, submitted a proposal seeking initiation of proceedings
against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the
jurisdictional authority, namely, 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.
3. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P2
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.671/2025 of Meenakshipuram
Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
4. We heard Sri. Akhil Binoy, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
W.P(Crl). No.142 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:11390
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P2 order was passed without proper application of mind and
without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. The learned counsel urged that an application seeking
cancellation of bail was already pending and, therefore, there was no
necessity to invoke the provisions of the KAA(P) Act in haste, as
cancellation of bail itself would have been an effective remedy to
prevent the detenu from repeating criminal activities. The learned
counsel also contended that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the
proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay
would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of detention. On these premises, it was argued that
Ext.P2 detention order 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.
The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the mere pendency of a
bail cancellation application does not preclude the detaining authority
from passing a detention order, as cancellation of bail is not always an
effective remedy to curb the criminal activities of habitual offenders.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, further asserted that there
is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing
Ext.P2 detention order after the commission of the last prejudicial
W.P(Crl). No.142 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:11390
activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing a
detention order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure
adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order,
and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
7. One of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, though in the detention order it is mentioned that an
application has been submitted for cancellation of bail granted to the
detenu in one of the cases registered against him, the jurisdictional
authority passed Ext.P2 order without considering the said fact
properly. According to the counsel, as an alternative remedy,
cancellation of bail was available to deter the petitioner from repeating
criminal activities; a drastic measure of preventive detention was not at
all necessitated.
8. We are not oblivious to the fact that when an effective and
alternative remedy exists to prevent a person from repeating criminal
activities, resorting to detention under preventive detention laws is
neither warranted nor permissible. However, merely because a bail
cancellation petition is pending, it cannot be said that an order of
detention under the KAA(P) Act cannot be passed. When there is an
imminent danger of repetition of criminal activities by a person who can
be classified as 'known goonda' or 'known rowdy', cancellation of bail
orders already secured by him would not be sufficient to deter such a
W.P(Crl). No.142 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:11390
person from indulging in criminal activities. The reason is that, first of
all, the purpose and scope of an application for cancellation of bail and
preventive detention are different. That apart, the bail cancellation
procedure, having regard to the ground realities, is a time-consuming
one. There is no assurance that an order of cancellation of bail could be
secured in time before the person concerned indulges in another
criminal activity. Preventive detention laws are enacted to address such
exigencies. It is on account of these reasons that it has been held by the
courts consistently that the authorities under the preventive detention
laws need not wait till orders are passed on the application for
cancellation of bail, for passing an order of detention. If it is held that, if
there is an option for cancellation of bail, a detention order cannot be
passed, it would render the preventive detention laws ineffective.
Moreover, even after the cancellation of bail, there is no legal
impediment to grant bail subsequently. Therefore, the pendency of the
bail cancellation petition has no much significance and the same, by
itself, will not constitute a valid ground to interfere with the detention
order.
9. While considering the contention of the petitioner,
regarding the delay that occurred in submitting the proposal and in
passing the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3(1)
of the 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
W.P(Crl). No.142 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:11390
passed in a casual manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible
materials after arriving at the requisite objective and subjective
satisfaction. However, there exists no inflexible rule requiring that a
detention order has to be passed within a specific time frame following
the last prejudicial activity. However, when there is undue and undue
delay in forwarding the proposal and passing the detention order, the
same would undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or
plausible explanation is offered for the delay.
10. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the
present case, it can be seen that, as already stated, there is a delay of
one month in mooting the proposal after the release of the petitioner on
bail. The said delay cannot be justified by saying that the same was
necessary for observing natural justice principles. The assertion that
additional time was needed to gather the details of the crimes before
forwarding the proposal lacks credibility. In the case at hand, only three
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, given the technological upgradation attained by
the Law Enforcement Authority. 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
W.P(Crl). No.142 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:11390
submitting the proposal at least after the release of the detenu on bail
in the last case registered against him. Therefore, we are of the view
that the one-month delay in forwarding the proposal, even after the
date of release of the detenu on bail, 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.P2
detention order is set aside. The Superintendent of High Security
Prison, Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Hariram,
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 High Security Prison, Viyyur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.142 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:11390
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 142 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO:
192/CAMP/2025P- KAA(P)A, DATED
22/11/2025 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
TO 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
DCPKD/16419/2025- SC 1, DATED
19/12/2025 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF GROUNDS OF DETENTION
DATED: 19/12/2025 ISSUED TO DETENU BY
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FOR EXECUTING
ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 19/12/2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JAIL ADMISSION
AUTHORIZATION DATED 19/12/2025 ISSUED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN CRIME CRIME
NO. 905/2024 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE
STATION BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT
PALAKKAD DTD: 07/11/2025
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN CRIME NO.
68/2025 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION
BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT PALAKKAD DTD:
07/11/2025
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED
22/10/2025 IN C.M.P. NO. 3346/2025 IN
CRIME NO. 671/2025 OF MEENAKSHIPURAM
POLICE STATION
