Josna vs The State Of Kerala & Ors.

Muralee Krishna S., J.

This W.P.(Criminal) is filed by the mother of the detenue, namely, Agarus, aged 26 years, S/o. Vishnudas, Devikripa House, Sarkara Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram district, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order dated 09.07.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent District Collector/District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA (P) Act’ for short), by classifying the detenue as ‘known goonda’ and Ext.P3 order dated 16.07.2026 (wrongly mentioned as Ext.P2 in the relief portion of the writ petition) issued by the 1^st respondent State Government, confirming Ext.P1 order under Section 3(3) of the KAAP Act.

Along with a memo dated 10.08.2026, the learned Senior Government Pleader produced a statement dated 06.08.2026 of the 3^rd respondent District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, opposing the pleadings in the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P1 order is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P2 sponsoring report submitted by the 3^rd respondent and therefore, there is non-application of mind by the 2^nd respondent while issuing that order. By relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 29.09.2014 in W.P.(C) No.19253 of 2014 in Vijayamma v. State of Kerala, the learned counsel argued that one of the cases mentioned in Ext.P1 order as serial No.2 was Crime No.731 of 2024 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station registered against the detenue, which was quashed by this Court by virtue of Ext.P5 order dated 18.09.2025. However, the copy of that order was not supplied to the detenue, which is against the principles stated in Vijayamma [W.P.(Crl.)No.19253 of 2014]. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 15.07.2026 to the Government against Ext.P1 order issued by the 2^nd respondent. In that representation, the petitioner has pointed out that Crime No.865 of 2025 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station was closed as a false case. But in Ext.P8 reply given by the Additional Chief Secretary, nothing has been mentioned about the same. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P2 sponsoring report does not contain any date. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is not clear as to whether sufficient time was given to the detenue to show cause against his preventive detention before issuing Ext.P1 order. It is the further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the last prejudicial activity, the detenue was granted bail as per Ext.P4 order by imposing eight conditions. But there is no reference to these bail conditions in Ext.P1 order. In support of his arguments regarding the necessity of mentioning bail conditions, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Devu Saji v. State of Kerala [2026 KHC OnLine 697]. According to the learned counsel, the detenue has studied up to 8^th standard, and therefore he does not know English. But he was not given the Malayalam translation of some of the documents supplied to him along with the detention order. As far as the necessity of supply of documents in the language known to the detenue is concerned, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in A. C. Razia v. Government of Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 621], and the judgments of a Division Bench of this Court in Riswana Begam v. State of Kerala [2009 (2) KLT 646], and the judgment dated 05.03.2015 in W.P.(Crl.)No.45 of 2015.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that all the documents relied by the authorities concerned to order preventive detention of the detenue were supplied to him and he endorsed the receipt of the same in the original file kept in the office of the 2^nd respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader made available for our perusal the file containing the acknowledgement of receipt of all the relevant documents by the detenue entered in his handwriting. By pointing out paragraph No.23 of Ext.P1 detention order, the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the sufficiency of the bail conditions in the last prejudicial activity imposed on the detenue was considered by the 2^nd respondent and arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the said bail conditions are insufficient to prevent the detenue from involving in subsequent criminal activities and meddling with public order. By pointing out paragraph No.4 of the judgment in Vijayamma [W.P.(Crl.)No.19253 of 2014], the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the 2^nd criminal case mentioned in Ext.P1 detention order registered against the detenue was quashed by this Court based on the settlement arrived at between the parties as evident from Ext.P5 order dated 18.09.2025. Therefore, non-supply of a copy of that document to the detenue will not make Ext.P1 detention order vitiated on that ground. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Government and replied to by virtue of Ext.P8 reply dated 17.07.2026. In short, the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the authorities have considered the materials on record and arrived at an objective and subjective satisfaction of the necessity of issuing an order of preventive detention against the detenue, and there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the orders under challenge in this writ petition.

We have perused the pleadings and materials on record and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. While going through Ext.P1 detention order and Ext.P2 sponsoring report, we notice that in Ext.P1 order, all the facts brought to the notice of the 2^nd respondent by way of Ext.P2 sponsoring report were considered in detail. Merely for the reason that all the facts stated in Ext.P2 report are considered in Ext.P1 order, it cannot be said as a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P2 sponsoring report submitted by the 2^nd respondent.

It is true that all the documents relied by the authority concerned to issue the order of preventive detention have to be supplied to the detenue, to enable him to submit an effective representation before the authority concerned, which is a fundamental right guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, though the petitioner contends that the detenue was not served with Ext.P5 order of the quashing of the second crime, i.e., Crime No.731 of 2024 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, considered in Ext.P1 detention order, we notice that by Ext.P5 order, the crime was quashed by this Court on a settlement arrived at between the parties therein. It is the detenue who moved this Court for quashing the said criminal case, and therefore there is no meaning in his contention that the said order of quashing the criminal case was not served upon him. While going through the facts of the case in Vijayamma [W.P.(Crl.)No.19253 of 2014], we find nothing in that judgment to support the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the point of non-supply of copy of the quashment order of one of the criminal cases referred to in Ext.P1 order.

By Ext.P7 reply dated 27.12.2025, the Additional Chief Secretary informed the detenue that a refer report has been filed in the Court concerned regarding Crime No.865 of 2025 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station. In fact, in Ext.P6 representation dated 15.07.2026, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that Crime No.865 of 2025 was referred to as false by the Police. However, in Ext.P8 reply dated 17.07.2026, nothing has been mentioned about Crime No.865 of 2025. This shows that Ext.P6 representation was not properly considered by the Government while rejecting the same.

So also, while going through Ext.P1 order of detention, we notice that the 2^nd respondent had considered the bail conditions in the last prejudicial activity, i.e., Crime No.15 of 2026 of Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, directing that the detenue shall not commit any similar offences or any other offences punishable under NDPS Act. But from Ext.P4 bail order, we notice that altogether 8 bail conditions imposed on the detenue in that order. They are;

In Devu Saji [2026 KHC OnLine 697], while considering the challenge raised by the wife of the detenue therein against the order of preventive detention issued under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, this Court held thus;

As noted above, altogether there are 8 bail conditions imposed on the detenue in Ext.P4 bail order. One among those conditions was indeed mentioned in Ext.P1 order. But the remaining conditions in Ext.P4 bail order are also intended to prevent the detenue from repeating the offence and to secure his presence and co-operation for the purpose of completion of the investigation of that case. One of the bail conditions is a direction on the detenue to appear before the Assistant Excise Commissioner (Enforcement), Thiruvananthapuram, on every Monday for a period of 5 months. These conditions are not at all considered in Ext.P1 detention order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is non-application of mind in Ext.P1 order regarding the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on the detenue in the last prejudicial activity. On that ground, Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.

As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the absence of date in Ext.P2 sponsoring report is concerned, we find no merit in that contention for the reason that the date of Ext.P2 sponsoring report as well as the further report are mentioned in Ext.P1 detention order. So also we find no merit in the contention of the petitioner regarding the non-supply of documents in the language known to the detenue, since the petitioner has no such a claim in Ext.P6 representation and there is no material to show that the detenue does not know English. The judgments in A. C. Razia [(2004) 2 SCC 621], Riswana Begam [2009 (2) KLT 646], and the judgment dated 05.03.2015 in W.P.(Crl.)No.45 of 2015 are therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case.

The upshot of the above discussions is that the impugned Exts.P1 and P3 orders are liable to be set aside on the ground of non-consideration of the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenue in the last prejudicial activity as per Ext.P4 order dated 23.06.2026 in Crl. M.P.No.3 of 2026 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, and also for the absence of proper consideration of Ext.P6 representation dated 15.07.2026 submitted by the petitioner against the preventive detention of the detenue.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Exts.P1 and P3 orders under challenge in this writ petition. The 5^th respondent, Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, is directed to release the detenue Agarus, S/o Vishnudas, forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. The Registry shall communicate this order to the 5^th respondent by e-mail at once.