[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Athulya K.T vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:4967
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. 2 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ATHULYA K.T, AGED 23 YEARS
W/O MOHAMMED SAHAL, KORATTIPARAMBIL VEEDU,
VAZHAKKALA, KATTOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680702
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 PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
4 THE CHAIRMAN,ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS,
PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADV. K.A. ANAS, P.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Wp(Crl.) No.2 of 2026 : 2 : 2026:KER:4967
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
07.10.2025 passed against one Mohammed Sahal, S/o. Salim, (herein after
referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The
petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. After considering the opinion of
the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government
vide order dated 16.12.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be
detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that on 19.07.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur 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, five
cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the
jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said
cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity against the detenu is Crime No.621/2025 of Kattur Police Station,
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(3),
113(3), 296(b), 111(2)(b) r/w 3(5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short
"BNS").
Wp(Crl.) No.2 of 2026 : 3 : 2026:KER:4967
3. We have 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 is vitiated, as the same is passed without proper
application of mind and disregarding the procedural safeguards envisaged
in the KAA(P) Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, apart
from registering an FIR, there are no materials to show the complicityof the
detenu, who is arrayed as the 4th accused in the said case, in the
commission of the offence. The learned counsel urged that the registration
of FIR alone is not sufficient to treat the said case as a qualified one to be
reckoned for passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act. The learned
counsel further contended that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the
proposal as well as passing the detention order, and hence, the live link
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is
snapped. The learned counsel further urged that the detaining authority
passed the impugned order in a casual manner without arriving at the
requisite objective and subjective satisfaction, and hence interference is
warranted.
5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor,
asserted that the detaining authority passed the impugned order after
being fully satisfied that there were sufficient materials to prove the
involvement of the detenu in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the
minimal delay in mooting the proposal is justifiable as a reasonable time is
Wp(Crl.) No.2 of 2026 : 4 : 2026:KER:4967
required for the sponsoring authority to collect the details of the five cases
in which the detenu was involved and to verify the same before mooting the
proposal. He further submits that the impugned order of detention was
passed without much delay from the date of the last prejudicial activity and
hence, it could not be said that the live link between the last prejudicial
activity and the purpose of detention is snapped.
6. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after considering
the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that the
jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 detention order. Earlier, an
externment order was passed against the detenu and whereby he was
interdicted from entering the limits of Revenu District Thrissur for a period
of one year. However, the said externment order was set aside by this
Court vide order in W.P.(C). No. 33567/2024. After quashing of the said
order, the detenu got involved in another criminal activity, and hence, the
proposal which resulted in the passing of Ext.P1 detention order was
mooted by the sponsoring authoirty.
7. As evident from records, altogether five cases in which the
detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 order. Out of the
said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.621/2025 of Kattur Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(3), 113(3),
296(b), 111(2)(b) r/w 3(5) of the BNS. The incident that led to the
registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on 24.06.2025, and he
was arrested only on 30.06.2025. Subsequently, he got bail in the said case
Wp(Crl.) No.2 of 2026 : 5 : 2026:KER:4967
on 02.08.2025. It was on 19.07.2025, while the detenu was under judicial
custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P)
Act was mooted. As the detenu was in jail, there was no basis for any
apprehension regarding repetition of criminal activities by him, and
therefore, the short delay that occurred in mooting the proposal is only
inconsequential. It is true that although the detenu got bail on 02.08.2025,
the detention order was passed only on 07.10.2025. The short delay that
occurred in passing the detention order is also justifiable, particularly when
five cases formed the basis for passing the detention order. Naturally, the
jurisdictional authority requires a reasonable time for verifying the records
of the case. Moreover, some time is required to verify the antecedents of
the detenu and to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on
the detenu at the time of granting bail.
8. Moreover, the sequence of events narrated above clearly
reveals that there was no unreasonable delay, either in mooting the
proposal or in passing Ext. P1 detention order. Likewise, a perusal of the
impugned order makes it evident that the jurisdictional authority was fully
cognizant of the fact that the detenu was on bail in the case registered in
respect of the last prejudicial activity. Further, the impugned order
specifically records that the bail conditions imposed on the detenu were
insufficient to deter him from engaging in criminal activities. A holistic
reading of the impugned order also reveals that the antecedents of the
detenu, including his involvement in criminal activities in violation of bail
conditions in earlier cases, formed the basis of the subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the jurisdictional authority that the existing bail conditions
Wp(Crl.) No.2 of 2026 : 6 : 2026:KER:4967
were inadequate to restrain the detenu from repeating such criminal
activities.
9. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that, apart from the registration of the FIR, there are no
materials to indicate the involvement of the detenu in the case registered in
respect of the last prejudicial activity. We agree that the mere registration
of an FIR, by itself, is not sufficient to treat a case as a qualified one for
initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act. It is now well settled, by a
catena of judicial pronouncements, that in addition to the registration of an
FIR, there must be "something more" to treat a case as a qualified one for
the purpose of passing an order under the KAA(P) Act. At the same time, it
cannot be overlooked that the jurisdiction exercised under the KAA(P) Act
is one of suspicion. Therefore, there is no legal requirement that a final
report should be filed in a case in order to treat it as a qualified one for
passing a detention order under the Act. However, as already noted, there
must be some material, apart from the mere registration of an FIR, to
indicate the complicity of the detenu in the commission of the offence.
Anyhow, as evident from the impugned order, the final report has already
been submitted against the detenu in the case registered against him with
respect to the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, he cannot be heard to
contend that, apart from the registration of an FIR, there is no material to
establish his complicity in the commission of the said crime.
Wp(Crl.) No.2 of 2026 : 7 : 2026:KER:4967
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has
not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
Wp(Crl.) No.2 of 2026 : 8 : 2026:KER:4967
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 2 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTSR/10397/2025-C4 DATED 07.10.2025
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE EXHIBIT
P2 REPRESENTATION, DATED 27.10.2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.
(RT).NO.4368/2025/HOME DATED 16.12.2025
