Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of one Senil Raj, ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 03.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 06.01.2026, 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 02.10.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got himself 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.1953/2025 of Kundara Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and29(1) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Adv. Anakha Babu, 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 was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further submitted that prior to the passing of the detention order, although the detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority passed the said order under an assumption that the detenu was under custody in the said case. According to the counsel, as the detenu was on bail while passing the impugned order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the detenu. The learned counsel pointed out that a preventive detention order could be legally passed against a person who is on bail only when the jurisdictional authority arrives at a satisfaction that the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail to him are insufficient to deter him from being involved in criminal activities. According to the counsel, in the case at hand, the non-mentioning of the fact that the detenu was on bail and the non-consideration of the bail conditions clamped on the detenu itself show the non-application of mind of the detaining authority, and the same vitiates the impugned order.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Public Prosecutor, all the procedural safeguards required to be complied with before and after passing a detention order were scrupulously observed, and therefore, the impugned order requires no interference.

6. Before considering the rival contentions taken, it is to be noted that out of the three cases considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1953/2025 of Kundara Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and29(1) of the NDPS Act. The incident which led to the registration of the said case occurred on 17.09.2025, and the detenu, who is arrayed as the first accused in the said case, was arrested on the same day. It was on 02.10.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, had forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. Subsequently, on 03.11.2025, the detention order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated above reveals that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.

7. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to the passing of the detention order, although the detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority passed the said order under a wrong assumption that the detenu was under custody in the said case. The learned counsel further submitted that, as the detenu was on bail while passing the impugned order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the detenu. However, the same was also not done in this case.

8. While considering the above contention, it is pertinent to note that from the copy of the bail order produced for verification, it is evident that the detenu was granted bail in the last case registered against him on 29.10.2025, i.e., five days prior to the issuance of the Ext. P1 detention order. Since the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity at the time of passing the detention order, the jurisdictional authority ought to have been conscious of this fact. Further, the authority was required to examine the nature and sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed upon the detenu. When a detenu is already on bail subject to conditions, it is incumbent upon the detaining authority to consider whether such conditions are adequate to prevent him from indulging in further criminal activities. Only upon due consideration of the bail conditions and upon arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the same were insufficient to restrain the detenu from engaging in similar activities could the authority have lawfully proceeded to pass an order of preventive detention.

9. However, in the present case, the impugned order is conspicuously silent as to the fact that the detenu had been released on bail in respect of the last prejudicial activity. There is also no indication that the sufficiency or effectiveness of the bail conditions was considered. More significantly, a reading of the impugned order reveals that it was passed under the erroneous assumption that the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. This clearly demonstrates a non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction arrived at and rendering the impugned detention order legally unsustainable.

10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 detention order is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Senil Raj, 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, Viyyur, forthwith.