[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Basheer N.K vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:11895
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 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1792 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BASHEER N.K
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O MOHAMMED, NAYAKAN MARKUNATHU VEEDU,
PAZHERI, KUPPADI P.O, SULTAN BATTERY,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673592
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
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,
CIVIL SATATION, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
CIVIL STATION,MALAPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676505
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 67000
W.P(Crl). No.1792 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:11895
ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, P.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.1792 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:11895
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
12.04.2024 passed against one Abdul Kareem, 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 friend of the
detenu. The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government,
vide order dated 07.12.2025, 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 15.03.2024, after considering
the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a
proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1)
of 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 rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)
(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, twenty-two cases in which the detenu
got involved have been considered by the detaining authority for
passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1234/2023 of
Kottakkal Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 457, 380, 461, 379, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code
W.P(Crl). No.1792 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:11895
3. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. 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, there is unreasonable delay in
mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order after the
date of the last prejudicial activity, and the said long delay in submitting
the proposal and in passing the detention order will certainly snap the
live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the
detention. On the said premise, it was urged that the impugned
detention order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that
there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in
passing the Ext.P1 detention order after the commission of the last
prejudicial activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable, as a
reasonable amount of time is required for the collection and verification
of records, particularly when twenty-two cases formed the basis for
passing Ext. P1 detention order. The learned Public Prosecutor further
urged that the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at
the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no
interference is warranted in the impugned order.
W.P(Crl). No.1792 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:11895
7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
records. As evident from the records, altogether twenty-two cases
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.1234/2023 of Kottakkal Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 457, 380, 461, 379, 201 r/w 34 of
the IPC. The incident that led to the registration of the said case
occurred on 16.10.2023. The detenu, who is arrayed as the 1st accused
in the said case, was arrested on 23.10.2023. Subsequently, he was
released on bail on 20.12.2023. Notably, it was thereafter, on
15.03.2024, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
KAA(P) Act was initiated against him. Virtually, there is a delay of five
months in mooting the proposal from the date of the last prejudicial
activity. Likewise, even after the release of the detenu on bail, there is a
delay of around three months in mooting the proposal.
8. 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 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. However, there exists no inflexible rule requiring that a
detention order has to be passed within a specific time frame following
W.P(Crl). No.1792 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:11895
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.
9. 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
around three months in mooting the proposal after the release of the
detenu 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. 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 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 delay in forwarding
the proposal will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial
activity and the purpose of the impugned order.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1
W.P(Crl). No.1792 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:11895
detention order is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Abdul Kareem, 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
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.1792 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:11895
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1792 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCMPM/3762/2024-S1 DATED 12.04.2024
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER
THE PROVISION OF RTI, DATED 31.10.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED TO
EXT P2, DATED 04.11.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZATE NOTIFICATION
NO.26 DATED 25.06.2024 OBTAINED UNDER
THE PROVISION OF THE RTI ACT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT).NO.4247/2025/
HOME DATED 07.12.2025 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
