Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. This writ petition has been directed against an order of detention dated 23.08.2025, passed against one Ibrahim Khaleel C. M. (herein after referred to as ‘detenu’) under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 01.11.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records available before us disclose that, on 10.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. For passing the order of detention, the authority reckoned ten cases in which the detenu got involved. The case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.686/2025 of Payyanur Police Station, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

3. We have heard Smt. Reeha Khaderk, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, [1991 (1) SCC 128], the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in cases wherein the detenu is in judicial custody, in connection with the last prejudicial activity, a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decision by the Supreme Court. According to the counsel, as the impugned order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, it was incumbent upon the authority to satisfy itself that it has reason to believe, on the basis of reliable material placed before it that, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, though in the Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned that the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, it is nowhere mentioned that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity, and if so released, he would be involved in criminal activities again.

5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after complying with all the procedural formalities and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Public Prosecutor, the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after being satisfied that a detention order under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is the only remedy to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities. It was further contended that the jurisdictional authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity at the time when the detention order was passed and therefore, the detention order will legally sustain irrespective of the fact that the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity while the impugned order was passed.

6. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main question that revolves around this petition is whether an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act can be validly passed against a person who is under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. While answering the said question, it is to be noted that, through a series of judicial pronouncements rendered by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, it is well settled that there is no legal impediment in passing an order of detention against a person who is under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. However, an order of detention against a person who is in judicial custody cannot be passed in a casual manner.    Undisputedly, a preventive detention order is a drastic measure against a citizen as it heavily impacts their personal as well as fundamental rights. When an effective and alternative remedy exists to prevent a person from repeating criminal activities, resorting to preventive detention is neither warranted nor permissible. When a detenu is in jail in connection with the last prejudicial activity, obviously, there is no imminent possibility of his being involved in criminal activities. Therefore, before passing a detention order in respect of a person who is in jail, the jurisdictional authority must satisfy itself that there is a real possibility that the detenu is on bail, and further, if released on bail, the material on record reveals that he will indulge in prejudicial activity if not detained. The circumstances that necessitate the passing of such an order against a person under judicial custody must be reflected in the order itself.

7. In Kamarunnissa’s case (cited supra), the Supreme Court made it clear that a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed even in the case of a person in custody (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody (2) if he has reason to believe on the basis of reliable materials placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail and (b) that on being so released he would in probability indulged in prejudicial activity and (3) if it is essential to detain him to prevent him from doing so. If the authority passes an order after recording its satisfaction in this regard, such an order would be valid.

8. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Veeramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu [1994 (2) SCC 337] and in Union of India v. Paul Manickam [2003 (8) SCC 342].

9. In view of the said decisions, in cases wherein the detenu is in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decisions by the Supreme Court.

10. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, while reverting 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.686/2025 of Payyanur Police Station, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 309(4) of the BNS. The detenu, who is the sole accused in the said case, was arrested on 19.06.2025, and since then, he has been under judicial custody. It was on 10.07.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the proposal for proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was initiated. Later, it was on 23.08.2025, the impugned order was passed.

11. In Ext.P1 impugned order, the fact that at the time of passing the said order, the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. However, on a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that it is nowhere mentioned that there is a possibility of the detenu being released on bail, and if so released, he would engage in criminal activities again. As already discussed, in order to pass an order of detention against a person who is in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority should enter into a satisfaction that, based on the reliable materials placed before the authority, it has reason to believe that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that on being so released he would in probability indulge in prejudicial activity. However, in the case at hand, such a satisfaction is not seen as entered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the impugned order.

12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 detention order is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Ibrahim Khaleel C. M. 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, Kannur, forthwith.