[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sakeena vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:4969
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 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SAKEENA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O ABBAS, ARAYANPURAKKAL HOUSE, VETTOM,
PARAVANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676502
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
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
MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676504
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST,
PIN - 670004
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:4969
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:4969
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention
dated 22.07.2025 passed against one Femis, S/o. Abbas 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 stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated
18.09.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a
period of one year from the date of detention.
2. The records available before us disclose that, on 11.06.2025,
a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram,
seeking initiation of proceedings 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 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. For
passing Ext.P1 detention order, the jurisdictional authority reckoned
ten cases in which the detenu got involved. Out of the said cases, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.726/2025 of Tirur Police Station, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 137(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110,
310(2) and 351(1) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
3. We have heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:4969
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is vitiated, as it has been passed without proper
application of mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned counsel, there
was an inordinate delay both in mooting the proposal by the sponsoring
authority and in passing the impugned order by the competent
authority after the date of the last prejudicial activity, thereby snapping
the live and proximate link between the said activity and the purpose of
detention. The learned counsel further contended that, had the
sponsoring authority entertained any bona fide apprehension regarding
the likelihood of the detenu repeating criminal activities, it would have
acted with promptitude in initiating the proposal for proceedings under
the KAA(P) Act. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order warrants
interference on the ground of delay and is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor,
asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the
proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after the last prejudicial
activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing a
detention order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure
adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order.
Moreover, a reasonable time would be necessary for collecting the
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:4969
details of the cases in which the detenu is involved, and minimal delay
in mooting the proposal and passing the order is quite natural and
hence justifiable. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the
detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is
warranted.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and
have perused the records.
7. The records show that the detenu was classified as a "known
rowdy", considering his recurrent involvement in ten cases. While
considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay that
occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and in passing the
order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3(1) of KAA(P)
Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as fundamental
rights of an individual. So such an order could not be passed in a casual
manner instead it can only be passed on credible materials after
arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction.
Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule requiring a detention order
to be issued within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial
act. However, when there is undue delay in making the proposal and
passing the detention order, the same would undermine its validity,
particularly when no convincing or plausible explanation is offered for
the delay.
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:4969
8. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the
present case, it can be seen that the case registered against the detenu
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.726/2025 of
Tirur Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 137(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 310(2) and 351(1)
of BNS. The incident that led to the registration of the last prejudicial
activity occurred on 26.04.2025. From the records, it is evident that
after the commission of the said crime, the accused absconded. The
records further reveal that the District Police Chief, Malappuram,
submitted the proposal to the competent authority for initiation of
proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act only on 11.06.2025.
Therefore, it is evident that there is a delay of forty six days in
submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial
activity. The said delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing
natural justice principles.
9. Curiously, the impugned order itself admits that there was
some delay in mooting the proposal. The reason assigned therein for
the said delay is that additional time was required to collect the details
of the cases in which the detenu was involved. In the present case, as
many as ten cases formed the basis for proposing and issuing the
detention order. The details of those cases were readily available and
could have been obtained without delay, particularly in view of the
technological advancements and institutional capabilities of the law
enforcement agencies. Therefore, the explanation that additional time
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:4969
was required to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu was
involved is untenable. Though it is true that the accused was
absconding after the commission of the last prejudicial activity, there is
no legal impediment to initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act
against an accused who has absconded after such activity. On the
contrary, when the accused is neither apprehended nor in custody in
connection with the last prejudicial activity, the sponsoring authority
ought to have exercised greater vigilance and promptitude in initiating
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, especially considering that the
likelihood of the detenu engaging in further criminal activities
continued to subsist.
10. If the Superintendent of Police who mooted the proposal
was having bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-
social activities by the detenu, definitely he would have acted swiftly
after the last prejudicial activity. In the case at hand, as already stated,
there is a delay of forty six days in mooting the proposal for the
detention order. Therefore, nobody could be blamed if it is found that
the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
detention is snapped. The said delay in mooting the proposal itself
shows that the proposed officer did not have any genuine apprehension
regarding the immediate repetition of criminal activities by the
accused.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:4969
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur,
Thrissur is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Femis 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, Thrissur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.1 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:4969
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCMPM/12034/2023-S1 DATED 22.07.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.
(RT).NO.3229/2025/HOME DATED 18.09.2025
