[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdulkader @ Andukka vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:16305
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 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 255 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ABDULKADER @ ANDUKKA
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O ABDU, KAYALADUKKAM, EZHAMMALE, HOSDURG,
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671531
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
SMT.P.ARDRA MENON
SHRI.ANANDHU S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION BUILDING, BC ROAD VIDYA NAGAR
KASARGOD, PIN - 671123
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KASARGOD TOWN, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671123
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KANHANGAD, KASARGOD, PIN - 671315
5 THE CHAIRMAN
KERALA ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT
(KAAPPA ADVISORY BOARD, PADOM ROAD, VADUTHALA,
ERNAKULAM), PIN - 682023
W.P(Crl). No.255 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:16305
6 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671315
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.255 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:16305
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
10.06.2025 passed against one Ramsheed B. @ Kichu (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 father of the detenu.
The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order
dated 24.11.2025, 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 on 16.05.2025 that a proposal
was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, eight cases in
which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for passing Ext.P11 detention order. Out of the said cases, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.488/2025 of Hosdurg Police Station, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2),
110 r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( for short "BNS").
3. We heard Sri. Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
W.P(Crl). No.255 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:16305
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on
improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel pointed out that,
prior to the passing of the detention order, although the detenu had been
granted bail in the last case registered against him, he was not actually
released from jail, as he was in judicial custody in connection with another
case. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the impugned
order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody, it was
incumbent upon the authority to satisfy itself that it had reason to believe,
on the basis of reliable material placed before it, that there was a real
possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that, upon such release,
he would, in all probability, indulge in prejudicial activities. According to
the counsel, in the present case, although the jurisdictional authority was
aware that the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with
another case, it failed to consider whether there was any real possibility of
his being released on bail and, if so released, whether he would, in all
probability, indulge in criminal activities again. The learned counsel
submitted that the non-consideration of this crucial fact itself demonstrates
non-application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority, thereby
vitiating the impugned order.
5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader,
submitted that Ext.P11 detention order was passed after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, all the
procedural safeguards required to be complied with before and after
W.P(Crl). No.255 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:16305
passing a detention order were scrupulously observed, and hence, the
impugned order requires no interference.
6. As already stated, the main contention taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without
due application of mind and on an improper appreciation of facts. It was
contended that, although the detenu had been granted bail in the last case
registered against him prior to the issuance of the detention order, he was
not in fact released from custody, as he continued to remain in judicial
custody in connection with another case. It was further argued that, since
the detention order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody,
the authority was required to satisfy itself, on the basis of cogent material,
that there existed a real possibility of his release on bail and that, upon
such release, he would, in all probability, engage in prejudicial activities.
According to the counsel, despite being aware that the detenu was in
custody in another case, the jurisdictional authority failed to examine
whether there was any real likelihood of his release on bail and the
consequent possibility of his indulging in criminal activities. Such non-
consideration, it was submitted, clearly establishes non-application of mind
and vitiates the impugned order.
7. While considering the above contention, it is pertinent to note
that, as already stated, the detenu was granted bail in the last case
registered against him on 16.05.2025. However, as evident from the
records, while he was under judicial custody in connection with the said
case on 15.05.2025, he, along with some other inmates in the jail,
W.P(Crl). No.255 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:16305
intimidated and assaulted the jail staffs and committed mischief in the jail.
Consequently, a case was registered with respect to the said incident as
crime No.565/2025 of Hosdurg Police Station. From the submission made
by the learned Government Pleader, it is discernible that the detenu, who is
arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case, was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody in that case at the time when Ext.P11 detention order was
passed. As evident from the submission made by the learned Government
Pleader, it was while the detenu was under custody in the said case that
the Ext.P11 detention order was passed. Since the detenu was in judicial
custody at the time of passing the detention order, it was incumbent upon
the jurisdictional authority to consider whether there was a real possibility
of his being released on bail and, if so released, whether he would again
involve himself in criminal activities.
8. However, although in the detention order, it is mentioned that
a case was registered as crime No.565/2025 of Hosdurg Police Station
against the detenu for his criminal and mischievous acts in jail, the
jurisdictional authority failed to consider the possibility of the detenu
getting bail in the said case and his likelihood in involving in criminal
activities if released on bail. Therefore, it is liable to be held that both the
objective and subjective satisfaction arrived at by the jurisdictional
authority stand vitiated.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P11 order
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, is
directed to release the detenu, Sri. Ramsheed B. @ Kichu, forthwith, if his
W.P(Crl). No.255 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:16305
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, Thrissur forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.255 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:16305
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 255 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit p1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FINAL
REPORT IN CRIME NO.336 OF 2023 DATED
19.04.2021 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Exhibit P2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13.01.2026 IN S.C NO. 851 OF 2023 ON
THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
SESSION COURT - 3, KASARAGOD
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 422 OF 2021 OF HOSDURG POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
530 OF 2021 DATED 10.07.2021 OF HOSDURG
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.666 OF 2021 DATED 27.10.2021 OF
AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1646 OF 2022 DATED 22.12.2022 OF
HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
938 OF 2024 DATED 16.11.2024 OF BEKAL
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
488 OF 2025 DATED 26.04.2025 OF HOSDURG
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.565 OF 2025 DATED 16.05.2025 OF
HOSDURG POLICE STATION
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.
1331/SB/KSD/2025 DATED 16.05.2025 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PREVENTIVE DETENTION
ORDER NO. DCKSGD/5334/2025/D1 (1) DATED
10.06.2025
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
GO(RT).4048/2025/HOME DT. 24/11/25
03.10.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN NO.
HOME-SSA2/100/2025
