[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Badusha N.N vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:15314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 216 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
BADUSHA N.N.
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O NAVAS, NALAKATH HOUSE, MANALI THENGU DESOM,
CHIRANELLUR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VIVEK.P.K
SHRI.SANDEEP SUKUMARAN
SMT.GADHA.S
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 STATION, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN
- 680003
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680003
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PUZHATHI, KANNUR.,
PIN - 670004
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:15314
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:15314
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
30.10.2025 passed against one Shihabudheen, 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 brother of the
detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government
vide order dated 06.01.2026, 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, it was after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal
was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City, on 11.09.2025,
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 goonda' as defined under Section 2(o)
(ii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved
were considered by the jurisdictional authority for issuing Ext.P1 order
of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is crime No.843/2025 of Kunnamkulam
Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:15314
Sections 22(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and 111(4) of the
Bharaitya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") the detenu is arrayed as the
1st accused in the said case.
4. We heard Sri. Vivek P. K., 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
the Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that the
jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention without
taking note of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, and the
conditions imposed on him at the time of granting bail itself were
sufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in further criminal
activities. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail
conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority,
and the impugned order was casually passed. The learned counsel
further 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 also 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
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:15314
itself would have been an effective remedy to prevent the detenu from
repeating criminal activities. The learned counsel further pointed out
that there is a time gap of around two years between the last prejudicial
activity and the last but one case, and the said time gap itself will show
that the detenu is not a person having a propensity to engage in
criminal activities repeatedly. On these premises, it was argued that
Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that
the jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P1 order after taking note of the
fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial
activity and after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while
granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being
involved in criminal activities. The learned Government Pleader further
contended that the detenu has a significant role in the last case
registered against 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
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. The learned Government
Pleader further urged that the order of detention was passed by the
jurisdictional authority upon proper application of mind and after
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:15314
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and
hence, warrants no interference.
7. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.843/2025 of Kunnamkulam
Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 22(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and 111(4) of the BNS.
The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on
12.07.2025, and the detenu was arrested on the same day. It was on
11.09.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody in connection
with the said case, that the sponsoring authority mooted the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against him.
Subsequently, he was released on bail on 22.09.2025. Later, on
30.10.2025, Ext.P1 order of detention was passed. The sequence of the
events narrated above clearly shows that there is no unreasonable
delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.
8. As already stated, the main contention taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that it was without taking note of the fact
that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity and without considering the sufficiency of
the bail conditions imposed by the court at the time of granting bail, the
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:15314
jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention. While
considering the contention of the counsel for the detenu in the above
regard, it is to be noted that there is no law that precludes the
jurisdictional authority from passing an order of detention against a
person who is already on bail. However, when an order of detention has
to be passed against a person who is on bail, it is incumbent upon the
authority to take note of the said fact and to consider whether the bail
conditions imposed on such a person while granting bail by the court
are sufficient to restrain him from being involved in criminal activities.
9. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case at
hand, it can be seen that in the impugned order itself, the fact that the
detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to.
Moreover, in the impugned order, it is stated that the detenu has
blatantly violated the stringent bail conditions imposed by the courts
and is involved in cases one after another. Likewise, it is stated that the
bail conditions are not sufficient to curb the detenu's criminal activities.
However, indeed, the conditions imposed by the court while granting
bail are not extracted in the impugned order. However, there is no legal
requirement that bail conditions be extracted in the order of detention.
However, what is required is that the jurisdictional authority shall
consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed in the bail order.
In the impugned order, it is clearly mentioned that the proceedings
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:15314
already initiated against the detenu under ordinary criminal law did not
yield any result, and the detenu is involved in criminal activities
repeatedly, disregarding the bail conditions imposed in the earlier
cases. A holistic reading of the impugned order further reveals that the
act of the detenu violating the bail conditions and being involved in
criminal activities is one of the materials which the jurisdictional
authority relied on to enter into a subjective satisfaction to pass the
detention order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdictional
authority did not consider the sufficiency of the bail condition imposed
on the detenu at the time of granting bail to him. The impugned order
reveals that the antecedents of the detenu, which included criminal
activities and the undermining of earlier bail orders, persuaded the
detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction regarding the
necessity of passing the order. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the above regard will fail.
10. Another contention 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
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:15314
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 detenu was arrayed as the 1st
accused. 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 jurisdictional authority
regarding the involvement of the detenu in the last prejudicial activity
cannot be faulted with.
11. Another contention 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.P1 order without considering the said fact
properly. According to the counsel, as an alternative remedy of
cancellation of bail was available to deter the detenu from repeating
criminal activities, a drastic measure of preventive detention was not at
all necessitated.
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 10 ::
2026:KER:15314
12. 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
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 in granting bail subsequently. Therefore, the pendency of
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 11 ::
2026:KER:15314
the bail cancellation petition has no significance and the same, by itself,
will not constitute a valid ground to interfere with the detention order.
13. While considering the contention taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdictional authority failed to take
note of the fact that there was a time gap of around two years between
the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case registered against
the detenu, and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
detaining authority is vitiated. According to the counsel, the said time
gap itself will reveal that the detenu is not a person having a propensity
to engage in criminal activities repeatedly. It is true that the last
prejudicial activity was committed by the detenu on 12.07.2025,
whereas the date of occurrence of the penultimate case registered
against him, i.e., crime No.1175/2023 of Kunnumkulam Police Station,
is on 12.08.2023. Thus, there is indeed a gap of around two years
between the two incidents. Anyhow, all the cases registered against the
detenu and considered for passing the detention order are with respect
to incidents that occurred within seven years. Therefore, the time gap
of around two years between the last two cases highlighted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is of little consequence in the context
of the impugned order.
14. From a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that all the
necessary procedural requirements before and after passing an order
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 12 ::
2026:KER:15314
under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act have been scrupulously complied
with in this case. We are further satisfied that the competent authority
passed the detention order after thoroughly verifying all the materials
placed by the sponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite
objective, as well as subjective satisfaction. 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
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.216 of 2026 :: 13 ::
2026:KER:15314
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 216 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 30.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
06.01.2026 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
