[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rejeena B vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:3149
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 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 20 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
REJEENA B
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O SHAJAHAN, KOLIYAKODU VEEDU, VENCHAMBU P.O,
KARAVALOOR, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691333
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,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS,
PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670004
W.P(Crl). No.20 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:3149
SRI.K.A.ANAS, P.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.20 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:3149
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of one Shajahan @ Venchambu
('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition
is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 20.12.2025 passed
by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity).
2. The records reveal that, on 04.10.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam Rural, seeking initiation
of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act
before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, six
cases in which the detenu got himself 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.1319/2025 of Punalur Police Station, alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 351(1)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
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 the
impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on
W.P(Crl). No.20 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:3149
improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further submitted
that prior to the passing of the detention order, although the detenu
was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to
the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority passed the said
order under an assumption that the detenu was under custody in the
said case. According to the counsel, as the detenu was on bail while
passing the impugned order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional
authority to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed
upon the detenu. The learned counsel pointed out that a preventive
detention order could be legally passed against a person who is on bail
only when the jurisdictional authority arrives at a satisfaction that the
conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail to him
are insufficient to deter him from being involved in criminal activities.
According to the counsel, in the case at hand, the non-mentioning of
the fact that the detenu was on bail and the non-consideration of the
bail conditions clamped on the detenu itself show the non-application
of mind of the detaining authority, and the same vitiates the impugned
order.
5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor,
submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well
as subjective satisfaction. According to the Public Prosecutor, all the
procedural safeguards required to be complied with before and after
passing the impugned order were scrupulously observed, and hence,
W.P(Crl). No.20 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:3149
the impugned order requires no interference.
6. Before considering the rival contentions taken, it is to be
noted that out of the six cases considered by the jurisdictional
authority to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity is crime No.1319/2025 of Punalur Police
Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections
109 and 351(1) of the BNS. The incident which led to the registration
of the said case occurred on 04.09.2025. The detenu, who is the sole
accused in the said case, was arrested on 05.09.2025. It was on
04.10.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, the District
Police Chief, Kollam Rural, had forwarded the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. Subsequently,
on 20.12.2025, the detention order was passed. The sequence of the
events narrated above reveals that there is no unreasonable delay in
passing the detention order.
7. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the counsel, prior to the passing of
the detention order, although the detenu was released on bail in the
case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity,
the jurisdictional authority passed the said order under a wrong
assumption that the detenu was under custody in the said case. The
learned counsel further submitted that, as the detenu was on bail while
W.P(Crl). No.20 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:3149
passing the impugned order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional
authority to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed
upon the detenu.
8. While considering the above contention, it is pertinent to
note that the detenu was granted bail in the last case registered
against him on 04.12.2025, i.e., sixteen days prior to the issuance of
Ext.P1 detention order. Since the detenu was on bail in connection
with the last prejudicial activity at the time of passing the detention
order, the jurisdictional authority ought to have been conscious of this
fact. Further, the authority was required to examine the nature and
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the detenu. When a
detenu is already on bail subject to conditions, it is incumbent upon
the detaining authority to consider whether such conditions are
adequate to prevent him from indulging in further prejudicial
activities. Only upon due consideration of the bail conditions and upon
arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the same were insufficient to
restrain the detenu from engaging in similar activities could the
authority have lawfully proceeded to pass an order of preventive
detention.
9. However, in the present case, the impugned order is
conspicuously silent as to the fact that the detenu had been released
on bail in respect of the last prejudicial activity. There is also no
indication that the sufficiency or effectiveness of the bail conditions
W.P(Crl). No.20 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:3149
was considered. More significantly, a reading of the impugned order
reveals that it was passed under the erroneous assumption that the
detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial
activity. This clearly demonstrates a non-application of mind on the
part of the detaining authority, thereby vitiating the subjective
satisfaction arrived at and rendering the impugned detention order
legally unsustainable.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 order
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur,
is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Shajahan @ Venchambu,
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.20 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:3149
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 20 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
DCKLM/12807/2025-M-16 DATED 20.12.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.11.2025 IN W.P.(CRL.).1406/2025 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
