[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vishnu.S vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:16259
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 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 248 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
VISHNU.S
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O SUSEELAN.L, RESIDING AT T.C. 23/1000,
CHAITHANYA BHAVAN, VALIYASALA, NEAR SANTHI
KAVADAM, THYCADU P.O, THYCADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SHRI.MUHAMMED SWADIQ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME (SSA)
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE AT DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION
ROAD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
(DETAINING AUTHORITY), PIN - 695043
4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, (LAW & ORDER),
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE
GROUND, CV RAMAN PILLAI RD, PANAVILA, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT (SPONSORING
AUTHORITY), PIN - 695014
W.P(Crl). No.248 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:16259
5 ADVISORY BOARD KAA (P) A,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682011
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
THRISSUR CENTRAL PRISON, VIYUR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
7 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.248 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:16259
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
23.10.2025, passed against one Subash @ Varunni (the detenu) under
Section 3(1) r/w 13(2)(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 order stands confirmed by the
Government, vide order dated 24.12.2025, and the detenu has been
ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the
date of detention.
2. The records reveal that on 17.09.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the
KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd respondent. For
the purpose of initiating 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, seven 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 is crime No.1187/2025 of Poojappura
Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 296(b), 118(1), and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for
short "BNS").
W.P(Crl). No.248 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:16259
4. We heard Sri. J. R. Prem Navaz, 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
impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on
improper consideration of facts. According to the learned counsel, the
jurisdictional authority passed the detention order 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. The learned
counsel urged that the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of
granting bail were sufficient to prevent him from repeating criminal
activities, and therefore, a detention order under the KAA(P) Act was
not at all necessitated. On the said premise, it was urged that Ext.P4
order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that in
the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was on bail in the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically
adverted to. Moreover, it was submitted that the jurisdictional
authority passed the detention order after being fully satisfied that the
bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not
sufficient to prevent him from being involved in criminal activities, and
W.P(Crl). No.248 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:16259
there is every likelihood that he would be involved in criminal activities
again, violating the said bail conditions. Hence, according to the
Government Pleader, the compelling circumstances that necessitated
the passing of Ext.P4 order have been mentioned in the order itself, and
therefore, the same requires no interference.
7. As evident from the records, this is the second detention
order passed against the detenu. Pursuant to the said order, the detenu
was detained for a period of six months. However, after his release from
jail, he again became involved in criminal activities, and two cases were
registered against him as Crime No.718/2025 and Crime No. 1187/2025
of Poojappura Police Station.
8. The incident that led to the registration of the last case
registered against the detenu occurred on 24.08.2025, and the detenu,
who is the sole accused in the said case, was arrested on 25.08.2025.
Subsequently, he got bail in the said case on 17.10.2025. It was on
17.09.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was
submitted by the sponsoring authority. Subsequently, on 23.10.2025,
Ext.P4 detention 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.
9. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the
W.P(Crl). No.248 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:16259
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
jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention. While
considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner 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 a detention order has to
be passed against a person who is on bail, it is incumbent upon the
jurisdictional 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. Undisputedly, an order of detention is a drastic
measure against a person. Therefore, when there are other effective
remedies available under the ordinary criminal law to deter a person
from engaging in criminal activities, an order of preventive detention is
neither necessitated nor legally permissible. Therefore, when a person
is already on bail, the compelling circumstances that necessitated the
passing of a preventive detention order should be reflected in the order
itself.
10. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case at
hand, it can be seen that in the impugned order itself, it is stated that
although the detenu got bail in the last case registered against him on
W.P(Crl). No.248 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:16259
17.10.2025, he was not released from jail so far. Moreover, in the
impugned order, it is stated that if the detenu is released from jail in
pursuance of the bail order passed, he will repeat criminal activities.
Significantly, in the impugned order, it is recorded that the antecedents
of the detenu and his previous conduct show that bail conditions alone
are not sufficient to restrain the detenu from engaging in anti-social
activities. 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, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on the
detenu was not considered by the jurisdictional authority cannot be
sustained.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the detenu has not
made out any case warranting 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.248 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:16259
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 248 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
DATED 27.08.2025 MADE BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
DATED 28.08.2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
DATED 17.09.2025 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 23.10.2025 PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER,
G.O. (RT) NO. 4480/2025/HOME DATED
24.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
