Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 03.09.2025 passed against one Nithin B. S. @ Kannan, S/o. Binu (herein after referred to as the '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 mother of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 12.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention.

2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a proposal dated 31.07.2025, forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, that the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether, seven cases in which the detenu got 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.632/2025 of Nemom Police Station, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).

3. We heard Sri. Vishnu J., 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 detention order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. It was further submitted that the jurisdictional authority disregarded the fact that the detenu had already executed a bond for good behaviour under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. According to the learned counsel, the said measure was sufficient to prevent the detenu from involving himself in criminal activities and therefore an order of detention was unwarranted.

5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the detention order was passed after due application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it was only after being fully satisfied that proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS would not be sufficient to deter the detenu from engaging in criminal activities that the jurisdictional authority resorted to passing an order under the preventive detention law. Therefore, it was submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned order.

6. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As already stated, seven cases in which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing the detention order. The incident that led to the registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 03.05.2025. It was on 14.05.2025, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in the said case. Later, the detenu got bail in the said case on 07.07.2025. Thereafter, on 31.07.2025, a proposal was forwarded by the sponsoring authority for the initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. It was on 03.09.2025 the impugned order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there was no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order. We are not oblivious of the fact that although the incident that led to the registration of the last case against the detenu occurred on 03.05.2025, the proposal was submitted by the sponsoring authority only on 31.07.2025. However, while considering the said delay, it cannot be ignored that from 14.05.2025 till 07.07.2025, the detenu was under judicial custody. As the detenu was under judicial custody during that period, there was no basis for any apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by him. Moreover, the proposal was forwarded without much delay after the release of detenu on bail. Therefore, the short delay that occurred in mooting the proposal is of little consequence.

7. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority failed to take into account the relevant and vital circumstance that the detenu had already executed a bond for good behaviour under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. According to the learned counsel, the said measure was sufficient to prevent the detenu from involving in further criminal activities. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the bond had been executed prior to the issuance of the detention order, the passing of a detention order was wholly unnecessary. While considering the said contention, first of all, it is to be noted that proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS, and action under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act operate in different spheres. Under Section 129 of the BNSS, a person is only called to furnish security for his good behaviour. On the other hand, under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, a person who has criminal antecedents is detained so as to prevent him from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, action under the KAA(P) Act is more effective and operates in a totally different sphere. It is for the detaining authority to decide whether action under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is necessary against a person who had already executed a bond under Section 129 of the BNSS, and proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS will in no way preclude the jurisdictional authority from initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act.

8. Moreover, from the impugned order, it is evident that the jurisdictional authority was fully cognizant of the fact that the detenu had executed a bond under Section 129 of the BNSS. Likewise, the sufficiency of the said bond was also duly considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the detention order. In the detention order, it is specifically stated that since 2019, the detenu has been consistently involved in serious criminal activities. It is further stated that a report was submitted against the detenu proposing the initiation of security proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS to deter him from repeating such criminal activities, and that a peace bond was executed by him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court on 30.07.2025 for a period of three years. Moreover, it is stated that, based on the detenu’s past criminal activities, it can be concluded that even if he is subjected to security measures under Section 129 of the BNSS, no change would be effected in his criminal attitude. A holistic reading of the impugned order reveals that the detenu’s continued involvement in criminal activities, in disregard of the bail conditions imposed by the courts while granting bail, constituted one of the materials relied upon by the jurisdictional authority in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order.

9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the jurisdictional authority is justified in passing the detention order notwithstanding the subsistence of bond executed under Section 129 of BNSS, by the detenu. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in any manner.

                  In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.