Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Heard Ms. Anagha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. O.A. Nuriya, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of approval of order of detention No. DCKKD/13540/2025-S2 dated 4th December 2025 and the confirmation No. G.O.(Rt) No. 531/2026/HOME dated 13th February 2026. The ground for challenge appears to be that the preventive detention cannot be justified on the basis of mere registration of crimes, especially when the detenue has not been found guilty by any court of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that substantial number of crimes relied upon by the detaining authority, particularly those registered at Pangode, Kilimanoor, Kottarakara, Paravur, Parippally and Venjaramoodu Police Stations, pertain to alleged theft of mobile phones. In the said cases, the specific allegation against the detenu is not that he had committed the theft, but that he had allegedly assisted the principal accused by providing a vehicle. The implication of the detenu in the said cases is thus only on the basis of alleged secondary involvement. Detenu is not the main perpetrator in any of the aforesaid cases and his involvement, if at all, is only peripheral in nature. The detaining authority has failed to take note of this crucial distinction and has mechanically treated all the cases alike for the purpose of branding the detenu as a “known goonda”. The inclusion of such cases, where the allegation against the detenu is only of a limited and indirect nature, for the purpose of invoking the drastic provisions of preventive detention, is wholly unjustified and amounts to non-application of mind. The detaining authority has failed to establish the live and proximate link between the last prejudicial activity and the issuance of the impugned detention order dated 4th December 2025. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu1, wherein it has been held that the preventive detention cannot be resorted to when the ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with the situation. The detenu having not been convicted in any of the cases relied upon, and out of the total cases, 14 are pending trial and 6 are under investigation and also with regard to the fact that the detenu has also been enlarged on bail in most of the cases and is cooperating with the proceedings, invocation of the drastic provisions of preventive detention is wholly unwarranted and amounts to misuse of the statute. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we had called for the original record.

3. A statement is also filed by the State respondents. It appears from the record and the statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the following cases are accounted for the order of detention.

                 

                

                

                  All the aforesaid cases are punishable for a period of minimum one year or more and accordingly, the classification of the detenu as “known rowdy” under Section 2(p)(iii) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (in short KAA(P)A Act) is fulfilled.

4. In the order of detention dated 4th December 2025, the detaining authority has elaborately referred to 14 cases registered against the detenu. It has also furnished the details of six other cases that are stated to be under investigation. The detention order states that the detenu has been habitually engaging in criminal activities and that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode. The Deputy Superintendent of Police has also initiated steps to include the detenu in the Rowdy History Sheet vide proceedings dated 18th December 2025. The detention order has examined the aspect of live link and has also explained the steps taken right from the date when the proposal was initiated until issuance of the detention order and it is noted that the last prejudicial activity was committed by the detenu on 17th July 2025 which was registered as Crime No. 785 of 2025 of Ponnani Police Station under Section 304 (2) 3(5) of BNS and the report was submitted on 28th October 2025 and the proposal was forwarded on 30th October 2025. Two months time period that had been taken has been explained by stating that the number of cases that had been registered against the detenu have been substantial and the time taken towards collecting and collating the details as well as the records with respect to the said cases had taken some time. The sponsoring authority took into consideration 20 cases registered against the detenu during the preceding seven years and concluded that the detenu posed a threat to public peace and good order. It further found that the detenu had been habitually indulging in criminal activities, thereby necessitating the invocation of preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P)A.

5. The case of the authorised officer is that the detenu is a rowdy coming under the definition of Section 2(t) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Section 2(t) of the Act reads as follows:

                  “rowdy” means and includes a person who either by himself or as a member of a gang commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any offences under sections 153A and 153B of Chapter VIII and Chapters XV, XVI, XVII, & ; XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860), or any offences under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (Central Act 54 of 1959), or the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (Central Act 6 of 1908)-

                  (i) punishable with five or more years of imprisonment of any type, or;

                  (ii) with less than five years of imprisonment of any type, except those punishable with less than one year of imprisonment; or

                  (iii) such offences under any other law for the time being in force, coming under item (i) or (ii), as may be notified by the Government, from time to time.”

6. The detention order relies upon 20 criminal cases registered against the detenu. Of these, 14 cases are pending trial before various courts, while the remaining six cases are under investigation. The offences alleged in these cases fall under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and attract clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(p) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. These crimes are under investigation. The question whether the crimes under investigation can be considered in classifying the detenu as a “rowdy” or “known rowdy” has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Stenny Aleyamma Saju v. State of Kerala and Others (2017 (3) KHC 517 (FB)) , in which the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala found that it is not a condition to complete the investigation, before it can be considered for the purpose of preventive detention. The reason being that the provisions in the act are preventive and not punitive. The detaining authority has elaborated the nature of crimes and in respect of the matters under investigation, it has considered the CCTV footage and other evidence collected in order to connect the detenu to the alleged offences. New offence of snatching under Section 304(2) BNS as well as 309(4), 309(6) corresponding to Sections 392 and 394 IPC were also considered in classifying the detenu as a rowdy in terms of Section 2(t) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

                  Section 2(p) defines ‘known rowdy’ as follows:

                  “Known Rowdy” means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention under this Act,-

(i) made guilty, by a competent Court at least once for an offence of the nature under item{i) of clause (t) of Section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or

                  (ii) made guilty; by a competent Court at least twice for any -offence of the nature mentioned under item (ii) of clause(t) of Section 2 or any offence notified as such under the said clause; or -

                  (iii) found, on investigation or enquiry by a competent police officer . or other authority, on complaints initiated by persons other than police officers, in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction to have committed any. offence mentioned in clause (t) of Section 2:

7. The record shows that the offences for which the detenu was found on investigation by a competent police officer in 20 separate instances, not forming part of same transaction to have committed offences and it will come under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P)A. The Rowdy History Sheet was opened in the name of the detenu on 18th February 2025 and thereafter, the Crime Nos. 957/2025 of Neyyattinkara Police Station for the offences under Sections 304(2), 3(5) BNS dated 11th May 2025, Crime No. 694/2025 of Neyyattinkara Police Station for the offences under Section 304(2) BNS dated 6th April 2025, Crime No. 699/2025 of Mangalapuram Police Station for the offences under Sections 126(2), 309(4), 3(5) BNS corresponding to Sections 341, 392, 34 IPC dated 6th June 2025 respectively were collected. The inclusion in the Rowdy History Sheet to prevent the detenu from committing further acts also did not yield result.

8. Proceedings were initiated under section 107 CrPC and case was registered in Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. Since the detenu did not appear, the matter was closed. Thereafter a report was filed under section 126 BNSS and detenu executed a bond for one year. During the currency of this bond detenu got involved in five crimes. Hence pendency of this proceedings did not deter the detenu from committing more crimes.

                  In Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another ((2012) 4 SCC 699) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held ‘in paragraph 11 as follows:

                  “It is well settled that the Court does not interfere with subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Detaining Authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and. relevant, that sufficiency of grounds is not for the: Court but for the Detaining Authority for the formation of subjective satisfaction that the detention of a person with a view to preventing him from. acting in any manner prejudicial to ‘public order is required and that such satisfaction is subjective and not objective. The object of the law of preventive detention ‘is not punitive but only preventive and further that the action of ‘the executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally, the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance with certain latitude in the exercise of its discretion.”

9. The last offence is crime 1007 /2025 of Nemom police station. Date of offence is 17-07-2025. He was arrested in crime No,785/2025 on 20-07-2025. In the last crime production warrant was issued. Ever since his arrest he is in judicial custody. Station House Officer, Thamarassery police station filed preliminary report on 28-10-2025. Sponsoring authority, District Police Chief, Kozhikode Rural filed the reporton 30-10-2025. Detention order was passed on 04-12-2025. Detenu is in judicial custody. Hence the live link between the detention order and the last prejudicial activity is not snapped. Arrest is made on , 08-12-2025, after obtaining sanction order from the concerned court.

10. The detaining authority was fully aware that the detenu was in judicial custody both at the time when the proposal for preventive detention was considered and at the time when the detention order was passed. The question whether a person who is already in judicial custody can be preventively detained has been authoritatively considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019 KHC 6662) and Kamarunnisa v. Union of India and another ((1991) 1 SCC 128). The record further reveals that the detenu was involved in a series of offences relating to theft, robbery, dacoity and chain snatching. Inspite of bail orders passed, his criminal potencity has not subsided. He is still active. He is a habitual offender. Conditions of the bail application were not honoured. These are the situations that have been taken into consideration by the detaining authority and the confirming authority in ordering the preventive detention.

                  In view thereof, the petition fails and is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.