[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sameera P vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:12449
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 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 169 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SAMEERA P
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O ASHRAF, PUTHIYEDATHU RAHMATH MANZIL,
AAYIKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670003
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,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KANNUR CITY,, PIN - 670002
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST,
PIN - 670004
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:12449
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:12449
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
12.11.2025 passed against one Rabeeh P., 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. The
detention order was confirmed by the Government vide order dated
19.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a
period of six months, from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that, after considering the recurrent
involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, on 07.10.2025, a
proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur City,
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.
3. Altogether, four 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 against the detenu is Crime No.1023/2025 of Kannur
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:12449
Town Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for
short "BNS").
4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. The learned counsel submitted that the detenu has
no involvement in the last case registered against him, and the said case
was not a qualified one to be considered for passing a detention order
under the KAA(P) Act. The learned Counsel further urged that, although
the petitioner had forwarded a representation to the Government
assailing the detention order, the said representation was not
considered by the Government in time, and its fate was also not
communicated. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government
Pleader, submitted that the order of detention was passed after
complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper
application of mind. The learned Government Pleader further contended
that the detenu has a significant role in the last case registered against
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:12449
him and, therefore, cannot be heard to contend that the said case does
not qualify for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act
against him. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that
the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the
Government, and its fate was duly communicated to her, and the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, sticking on non-
consideration of the representation, is absolutely baseless.
7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident
from the records, the case registered against the detenu with respect to
the last prejudicial activity crime No.1023/2025 of Kannur Town Police
Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 118(2), 109(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS. As already noted, the incident
that led to the registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on
24.08.2025. The detenu was arrested in the said case on 17.09.2025,
and since then, he has been under judicial custody. The sponsoring
authority mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
KAA(P) Act against the detenu on 07.10.2025, while the detenu was
under judicial custody in connection with the last case registered
against him. Thereafter, it was on 12.11.2025 that the impugned order
was passed. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals
that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in
passing the detention order.
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:12449
8. One of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detenu is totally innocent in the case last
registered against him. According to the counsel, as the detenu is totally
innocent in that case, the said case ought not have been considered by
the jurisdictional authority for arriving at its objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. While considering the said contention, it is
pertinent to note that in the last case registered against the detenu,
very serious allegations are attributed to him. The jurisdictional
authority passed the detention order after being satisfied that the
detenu had active involvement in the said crime. Moreover, from the
impugned order and other materials produced along with the writ
petition, it is discernible that the detenu was arrayed as the 1st accused
in the said case based on the statement given by the witnesses to the
occurrence. Apart from that, his arrest was recorded after verifying the
CCTV footage collected from near the place of occurrence, and the
victim of the offence had duly identified him as one of the assailants
during the course of the investigation. It is well settled that there is no
requirement in law that a case should culminate in a conviction or a
final report should be invariably filed for treating the same as a
qualified case for the purpose of preventive detention. The jurisdiction
exercised under the KAA(P) Act is a jurisdiction of suspicion. Likewise,
the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the jurisdictional authority,
being based on relevant materials, cannot be lightly interfered with. We
are therefore of the considered view that the satisfaction of the
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:12449
jurisdictional authority regarding the involvement of the detenu in the
last prejudicial activity cannot be faulted with.
9. While considering the contention in the writ petition that
the representation submitted by the detenu was not considered by the
Government within a reasonable time, and the fate of the representation
was not timely communicated to him, it is to be noted that the right of a
detenu to get his representation considered by the Government is a
constitutional as well statutory right. However, the records reveal that
the contention of the petitioner that the representation of the detenu
was not considered by the Government appears to be baseless. The copy
of the said representation (Ext.P3), which is appended with the writ
petition, reveals that the same is dated 17.11.2025. However, it is
significant to note that no documents whatsoever have been produced
from the side of the petitioner to show when the said representation
was received by the Government. Although the learned counsel for the
petitioner orally submitted that the representation was received by the
Government on 19.11.2025, it is highly suspicious what prevented the
petitioner from producing the Acknowledgement card evidencing the
receipt of the representation by the Government, particularly when the
learned counsel is having a contention that the said representation was
sent through registered post.
10. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader submitted on
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:12449
instructions that Ext.P3 representation was received by the Government
only on 15.12.2025. According to the learned Government Pleader, on
24.11.2025 itself, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board for its
opinion. Therefore, it is demonstrably clear that before the receipt of
Ext.P3 representation, the matter was referred by the Government to
the Advisory Board.
11. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of
the Supreme Court in K. M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India (1991
(1) SCC 476). In the said case in paragraph 16, the Supreme Court
observed as follows;
"The time imperative for consideration of representation can
never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the
necessities and the time at which the representation is made.
The representation may be received before the case is referred
to the advisory board, but there may not be time to dispose of
the representation before referring the case to the advisory
board. In that situation, the representation must also be
forwarded to the advisory board along with the case of the
detenu. The representation may be received after the case of
the detenu is referred to the board. Even in this situation, the
representation should be forwarded to the advisory board,
provided the board has not concluded the proceedings. In both
the situations, there is no question of consideration of the
representation before the date of receipt of the report of the
advisory board. Nor it could not be said that the Government
had delayed the consideration of the representation,
unnecessarily awaiting the report of the board. It is proper for
the Government in such situation to await the report of the
board."
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:12449
12. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in
Golam Biswas v. Union of India and another (reported in 2015 KHC
5588).
13. As already stated from the submission made by the learned
Government Pleader on instructions, Ext.P3 representation was
received by the Government only on 15.12.2025 and before that, the
matter had been referred to the Advisory Board. Moreover, no contra-
materials have been produced by the petitioner to show that the
representation was received by the Government before the said date. As
the matter was already seized of by the Advisory Board before the
receipt of the representation, the Government is justified in not
considering the representation immediately. The Advisory Board formed
its opinion and forwarded the same to the Government on 12.01.2026.
Thereafter, the Government confirmed the order of detention vide order
dated 19.01.2026. A perusal of the confirmation order reveals that it
was after considering Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner
and the opinion of the Advisory Board that the detention order was
confirmed. Moreover, a perusal of a copy of the letter addressed to the
petitioner made available before us by the learned Government Pleader
reveals that the fate of the representation was communicated to the
petitioner vide letter dated 20.01.2026. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that the representation submitted by her was not considered
by the Government in time will not be sustained.
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 10 ::
2026:KER:12449
Resultantly, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner
has not made out any ground for interference. Hence, the writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.169 of 2026 :: 11 ::
2026:KER:12449
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 169 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCKNR/11728/2025-SS1 DATED
12.11.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE
GO(RT).NO.213/2026/HOME DATED
19.01.2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.11.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.11.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
