Kerala High Court
Mohamed Shanavas P vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2026
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:1:-
2026:KER:54247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 589 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
MOHAMED SHANAVAS P., AGED 31 YEARS
KIZHAKKETANDI HOUSE, PALAKANDIPARAMB,
KODUKUTHI PARAMBU, KONDOTTY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673637.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:2:-
2026:KER:54247
2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR
MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676505.
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, DPO ROAD, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR, VIYYUR P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MENNATTOOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:3:-
2026:KER:54247
SOUMEN SEN, C.J.
&
SYAM KUMAR V. M., J.
------------------------------------------------------
WP (Crl.) No.589 of 2026
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2026
JUDGMENT
Soumen Sen, C.J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of
detention dated 22nd January, 2026 passed against one
Fayis Mubasheer, (the detenu) under Section 3(1) of the
Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 [‘KAA(P)A’,
for brevity]. The petitioner herein is the friend of the detenu.
The said order of detention was confirmed by the
Government vide order dated 12th March, 2026, and the
detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of six
months, from the date of detention.
2. The detention order was passed on the basis of a proposal
submitted by District Police Chief, Malappuram, on 31 st
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:4:-
2026:KER:54247
December, 2025 followed by an additional report dated 9 th
January, 2026 alleging that the detenu was involved in
three crimes registered under the provisions of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’ Act,
for short). Upon consideration of the proposal and the
additional report, the Detaining Authority passed the order
of detention on 22nd January, 2026, which was executed on
25th January, 2026.
3. The first adverse case relied upon by the Detaining
Authority is Crime No.757/2023 of Thenhipalam Police
Station, registered on 31st July, 2023 for the offences
punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. In
the said crime, the detenu was arrested on the date of
registration of the crime, i.e., 31st July, 2023. Thereafter, he
was enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 5 th
September, 2023 in Bail Application No. 7391 of 2023. The
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:5:-
2026:KER:54247
investigation was subsequently completed, and the final
report was laid before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA)
Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri, on 12th September, 2023.
4. The second case relied upon is Crime No. 50/2023 of Excise
Range Office, Parappanangadi, registered on 21st October,
2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 22(b)(ii)B
of the NDPS Act. The detenu herein was arrested on 21 st
October, 2023. Thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by the
Special Court SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act cases, Manjeri
by order dated 11th January, 2024 in CMP No.19(a)/2023.
The investigation was subsequently completed and the final
report was laid before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA)
Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri, on 31st January, 2024.
5. The last adverse case relied upon by the Detaining
Authority is Crime No.920/2025 registered on 10th
November, 2025 for the offences punishable under Section
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:6:-
2026:KER:54247
20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act. The detenu herein was arrested
on the very same day and the investigation in the said case
is stated to be in progress.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the
detention order on several grounds. The first and foremost
is non-application of mind. It was submitted that, although
the detention order was passed on the premise that there
was a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail in the
last prejudicial case, the bail application preferred by the
detenu in Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 had already been dismissed
by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Cases,
Manjeri, on 15th January, 2026, much prior to the passing
of the detention order on 22nd January, 2026. It is,
therefore, argued that the failure of the Detaining Authority
to advert to the said order clearly demonstrates non-
application of mind.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:7:-
2026:KER:54247
7. The second ground of challenge is that the documents
supplied to the detenu at the time of execution of the
detention order were illegible, thereby depriving him of an
effective opportunity to make a meaningful representation
to the Government and the Advisory Board, in violation of
the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India.
8. The third ground of challenge is that the live and proximate
link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the order
of preventive detention stood snapped on account of the
unexplained delay in initiating the proposal for detention. It
was pointed out that the last prejudicial activity occurred
on 10th November, 2025, whereas the proposal for
preventive detention was submitted only on 31 st December,
2025, after a delay of 51 days, without furnishing any
explanation for the same.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:8:-
2026:KER:54247
9. On the aspect of delay, it was submitted that, though the
detention order was passed on 22nd January, 2026, it was
executed only on 25th January, 2026. Since the detenu was
already in judicial custody in connection with the last
prejudicial case, there was no impediment to the immediate
execution of the order. The unexplained delay of three days
in executing the detention order, according to the
petitioner, vitiates the detention.
10. Lastly, it was submitted that proceedings under Section
129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(‘BNSS’, for short) had already been initiated against the
detenu on 12th November, 2025 for execution of a bond to
maintain peace and the said proceedings were pending
before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirur. In spite of the
availability of the said preventive measure, the Sponsoring
Authority recommended preventive detention and the
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:9:-
2026:KER:54247
Detaining Authority invoked the provisions of the Act
without recording any satisfaction as to why the
proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS were
inadequate to prevent the detenu from indulging in
prejudicial activities.
11. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader had
referred to a memo dated 15th May, 2026, placing on record
the statement of facts furnished by the District Police Chief,
Malappuram and submitted that the detenu is a habitual
offender who has been repeatedly involved in offences
under the NDPS Act and that, despite the opening of a
Rowdy History Sheet and the initiation of proceedings
under Section 129 of the BNSS, he continued to indulge in
similar criminal activities. It was, therefore, submitted that
the ordinary preventive measures had proved ineffective,
warranting recourse to preventive detention under the Act.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:10:-
2026:KER:54247
12. It was further submitted that the detenu herein has
violated the bail conditions imposed by the respective
courts. It is also submitted that the detenu obtained bail in
Crime No.757/2023 of Thenhipalam Police Station under
Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act from this Court by
order dated 5th September, 2023 in Bail Application
No.7391 of 2023, inter alia, on the following conditions:
(i) “The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing
a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
with two solvent sureties, out of which one surety has to
be a parent or a close relative, for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating
Officer every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till
the final report is laid;
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper
with the evidence or influence or try to influence the
witnesses;
(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime
while on bail.
(v) If any of the conditions are violated, the court
concerned will be empowered to take steps for
cancellation of bail as per law;”
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:11:-
2026:KER:54247
13. During the period when he was on bail, he violated one of
the bail conditions, namely, “The petitioner shall not involve
in any other crime while on bail” by involving himself in
Crime No.50/2023 of Parappanangadi Excise Range Office
registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act on 21 st
October, 2023. Thereafter, the Special Court (SC/ST (POA)
Act & NDPS Act Cases), Manjeri, granted bail to the detenu
in the said crime on 11th January, 2024 in C.M.P. No.19(a)/
2023, inter alia, on the following conditions:
1. “Petitioner shall execute bond for Rs.1,00,000-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum.
2. Petitioner shall not interfere with investigation,
influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with
evidence,
3. Petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on
bail.
4. Petitioner shall surrender his passport within 3 days
of his release. If he has no passport, he shall file an
affidavit to that effect.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:12:-
2026:KER:54247
5. Petitioner shall report before the Investigation Officer
on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m., and 11.00 a.m.
for three months.”
14. It is further submitted that the detenu again violated the
bail conditions in the aforesaid crime by subsequently
getting involved in Crime No.920/2025 of Thenhipalam
Police Station registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the
NDPS Act on 10th November, 2025. Hence, necessary
applications have been submitted before the concerned
courts seeking cancellation of bail granted to the detenu.
15. The learned Senior Government Pleader has further pointed
out that the dismissal of the detenu’s bail application by
the Special Court did not preclude him from approaching a
higher forum or filing a fresh application for bail. Therefore,
the Detaining Authority was justified in arriving at the
subjective satisfaction that there existed a real possibility of
the detenu being released on bail and the omission to
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:13:-
2026:KER:54247
specifically refer to the order rejecting bail does not vitiate
the detention order.
16. In refuting the delay as ground for setting aside the
detention order, it was submitted that there was no
unexplained delay either in submitting the proposal or in
executing the detention order. The proposal was submitted
while the detenu was in judicial custody and after the
detention order was passed, permission was obtained from
the jurisdictional Special Court to execute the same inside
the prison. Immediately upon obtaining such permission,
the detention order was executed after complying with the
statutory formalities. It was therefore argued that the delay,
if any, stood satisfactorily explained.
17. Lastly, with regard to the illegibility of the documents
supplied to the detenu, it was submitted that legible copies
of the detention order and the documents relied upon were
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:14:-
2026:KER:54247
furnished to the detenu at the time of execution of the
detention order and the detenu had acknowledged receipt
of the same. It was, therefore, contended that no prejudice
had been caused to the detenu in making an effective
representation.
18. The merits of the detention order require consideration in
the light of the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and original records produced by the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
19. The first issue raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the Detaining Authority has failed to take
note of the dismissal of the detenu’s bail application before
passing the order of detention, thereby rendering the order
vitiated on account of non-application of mind. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
detenu was arrested in connection with Crime
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:15:-
2026:KER:54247
No.920/2025 on 10th November, 2025 and had preferred
Crl.M.P. No.01/2026 before the Special Court for SC/ST
(POA) Act and NDPS Cases, Manjeri, seeking regular bail.
The said application came to be dismissed on 15 th January,
2026. Thereafter, the Detaining Authority passed the order
of detention on 22nd January, 2026. Refuting the said
contention, the learned Senior Government Pleader
submitted that the dismissal of the detenu’s bail
application by the Special Court did not preclude him from
approaching a higher forum or filing a fresh application for
bail. Therefore, the Detaining Authority was justified in
arriving at the subjective satisfaction.
20. The main question emerged from the submissions made on
behalf of the parties is whether an order of detention can
validly be passed against a person who is under judicial
custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. It is
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:16:-
2026:KER:54247
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 in connection with the last prejudicial
activity cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.
21. To deal with the above position, it is pertinent to refer to a
Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chandrika M v.
State of Kerala1, wherein it was held as follows:
“7. ………Undisputedly, an order of detention is a
drastic measure against a citizen as it heavily impacts
their personal as well as their 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 being involved in criminal
activities. Therefore, before passing a detention order
in respect of a person who is in jail, the concerned
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
1
2025 SCC OnLine Ker 6582
CNR: KLHC010274612026W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:17:-
2026:KER:54247
will indulge in prejudicial activity if not detained. The
circumstances that necessitate the passing of such an
order must be reflected in the order itself.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of
India2, has laid down a triple test to be satisfied before
passing an order of detention against a person who is in
judicial custody with respect to the last prejudicial activity.
The three requirements are (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 indulge in prejudicial activity and (3) if
it is essential to detain him to prevent him from doing so.
23. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and reverting to
2
(1991) 1 SCC 128
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:18:-
2026:KER:54247
the facts of the present case, it is evident that the Detaining
Authority has duly taken note of the fact that the detenu
was in judicial custody in connection with the last
prejudicial activity, namely, Crime No.920/2025 of
Thenhipalam Police Station, since 10th November, 2025.
The impugned order further records that, as the detenu
had remained in judicial custody for more than one month,
there existed a real possibility of his being enlarged on bail
and released in the near future. The Detaining Authority
has also observed that, having regard to the detenu’s
antecedents and his past conduct of repeatedly involving
himself in similar offences, if released on bail, there was
every likelihood of his indulging in further offences of a
similar or more serious nature, thereby posing a threat to
public health and society.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:19:-
2026:KER:54247
24. The three-fold test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Kamarunnissa (supra) stands duly satisfied in the facts
of the present case. Firstly, the Detaining Authority was
fully conscious of the fact that the detenu was already in
judicial custody at the time of passing the detention order.
Secondly, the Detaining Authority has recorded its
satisfaction that there existed a real possibility of the
detenu being released on bail in the near future. Thirdly,
having regard to the detenu’s antecedents, particularly his
repeated involvement in offences under the NDPS Act even
while on bail in earlier cases, the Detaining Authority was
satisfied that, upon such release, he was likely to indulge
in further prejudicial activities. Thus, the subjective
satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority satisfies
the parameters laid down in Kamarunnissa (supra) and
cannot be said to suffer from non-application of mind
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:20:-
2026:KER:54247
merely because the earlier bail application had been
dismissed.
25. However, it is to be noted that the detention order does not
take into consideration the fact that the detenu had filed an
application for regular bail before the Special Court for
SC/ST (POA) Act and NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri, and that
the said application (Crl.M.P. No.01/2026) had been
dismissed on 15th January, 2026, prior to the passing of
the detention order. It is thus clear that Exhibit-P1 order of
detention was passed nearly six days after the dismissal of
the said petition. The failure to consider these material
facts renders the order legally vulnerable. Therefore, we
have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order
suffers from illegality on this ground alone.
26. The next ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the live and proximate link
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:21:-
2026:KER:54247
between the last alleged prejudicial activity and the order of
preventive detention stood snapped on account of the
unexplained delay in initiating the proposal for detention.
According to the petitioner, the last prejudicial activity
occurred on 10th November, 2025, whereas the proposal for
preventive detention was submitted only on 31 st December,
2025, after a delay of about 51 days.
27. In Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu 3, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the phrase “live and
proximate link” in the following words:
“It is further true that there must be a “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention
alleged by the detaining authority and the avowed
purpose of detention, namely the prevention of
smuggling activities. We may in appropriate cases
assume that the link is “snapped” if there is a long
and unexplained delay between the date of the order
of detention and the arrest of the detenu. In such a
case, we may strike down an order of detention
unless the grounds indicate a fresh application of the
mind of the detaining authority to the new situation
3
(1979) 1 SCC 465
CNR: KLHC010274612026W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:22:-
2026:KER:54247
and the changed circumstances. But where the delay
is not only adequately explained but is found to be
the result of the recalcitrant or refractory conduct of
the detenu in evading arrest, there is warrant to
consider the “link” not snapped but strengthened.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. While dealing with the question of delay it is also relevant
to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Licil Antony v. State of Kerala4 wherein it
was observed as follows:
” 9. While dealing with the question of delay in
making an order of detention, the court is required to
be circumspect and has to take a pragmatic view. No
hard-and-fast formula is possible to be laid or has
been laid in this regard. However, one thing is clear
that in case of delay, that has to be satisfactorily
explained. After all, the purpose of preventive
detention is to take immediate steps for preventing
the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activity. If
there is undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activity and making of the order of
detention and the delay has not been explained, the
order of detention becomes vulnerable. Delay in
issuing the order of detention, if not satisfactorily
explained, itself is a ground to quash the order of
detention. No rule with precision has been
4
(2014) 11 SCC 326
CNR: KLHC010274612026W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:23:-
2026:KER:54247
formulated in this regard. The test of proximity is not
a rigid or a mechanical test. In case of undue and
long delay the court has to investigate whether the
link has been broken in the circumstances of each
case.”
(emphasis supplied)
29. Similarly in Adishwar Jain v. Union of India,5 it was held
as follows:
“15. Delay, as is well known, at both stages has to
be explained. The court is required to consider the question
having regard to the overall picture. We may notice that in
Sk. Serajul v. State of W.B. [(1975) 2 SCC 78 : 1975 SCC
(Cri) 425] this Court opined: (SCC p. 80, para 2)
“There was thus delay at both stages and this
delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw
considerable doubt on the genuineness of the
subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate,
Burdwan recited in the order of detention. It would
be reasonable to assume that if the District
Magistrate of Burdwan was really and genuinely
satisfied after proper application of mind to the
materials before him that it was necessary to detain
the petitioner with a view to preventing him from
acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted
with greater promptitude both in making the order of
detention as also in securing the arrest of the
petitioner, and the petitioner would not have been
allowed to remain at large for such a long period of
time to carry on his nefarious activities.”
(emphasis supplied)
5
(2006) 11 SCC 339
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:24:-
2026:KER:54247
30. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, we
find that no satisfactory explanation has been offered by
the Detaining Authority for the delay of about 51 days in
submitting the proposal for preventive detention and the
further delay of 22 days in passing the detention order,
despite the detenu being in judicial custody. If the
Detaining Authority had bona fide apprehension regarding
the repetition of criminal activities by the detenu, the
authority ought to have acted with promptitude and the
order of detention would have been passed without any
delay. Therefore, the unexplained delay in submitting the
proposal for preventive detention and passing the
impugned order of detention will definitely snap the
live link between the last prejudicial activity and the
purpose of detention.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:25:-
2026:KER:54247
31. On the ground of non-supply of legible copies to the
detenu, it was submitted by the petitioner that, at the time
of execution of the detention order, although copies of the
relevant documents were furnished to the detenu, pages
68, 69, 70, 109, 110, 111, and 112 of the documents
supplied by the sponsoring authority were illegible, thereby
depriving the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a
representation against the order of detention.
32. The consequences of supply of illegible documents have
been recently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Pramod Singla v. Union of India6. It has held as follows:
“34. In cases where illegible documents have been
supplied to the detenue, a grave prejudice is caused to
the detenue in availing his right to send a representation
to the relevant authorities, because the detenue, while
submitting his representation, does not have clarity on
the grounds of his or her detention. In such a
circumstance, the relief under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India and the relevant statutory
provisions allowing for submitting a representation are
6
2023 SCC OnLine SC 374
CNR: KLHC010274612026W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:26:-
2026:KER:54247
vitiated, since no man can defend himself against an
unknown threat.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. This Court while considering a similar issue, in Aleena
Alex v. State of Kerala and Ors7, has held as follows:
“…..As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, and as is apparent from the original
documents produced before us pursuant to our direction
in a sealed cover, certain pages of the Exhibit P1 order
that had been furnished to the detenu were illegible and
could not be read. The specific reference made by the
learned counsel to page Nos.33, 34 and 35 of Exhibit P1
in the W.P.(Crl.) being illegible and unreadable is found to
be factually correct upon our perusal of the original
records produced before us. It is trite and settled that
unless a legible copy is provided to the detenu, he may
not be able to exercise his right to respond to the same by
way of a representation /explanation validly and
adequately. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on the dictum laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in this respect is valid and tenable…..”
34. However, in order to verify the correctness of the contention
that the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the
detenu are illegible, we have perused the pages made
7
Judgment dated 5th day of June 2026 in WP(Crl.) No. 599 of 2026
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:27:-
2026:KER:54247
available before us (Exhibit-P3) by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. On such perusal, we are satisfied that the
copies of the pages 68, 69 and 70 of the scene mahazar in
Crime No.50/2023 and pages 109, 110, 111 and 112 of the
report filed before the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act &
NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri by the Public Prosecutor, Manjeri
against the bail application filed by the detenu in Crime
No.920/2025 were found to be illegible, whereas the
document in page No. 67 is found to be in a readable form.
However, it is to be seen that, the contents in pages 109 to
112 are material documents concerning the last prejudicial
activity relied upon by the Detaining Authority, thereby
depriving the detenu of an effective opportunity to
understand the material relied upon by the Detaining
Authority and to make an effective representation against
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:28:-
2026:KER:54247
the order of detention as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of
the Constitution of India.
35. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detenu had already executed a bond
for keeping peace under Section 129 of the BNSS and,
without taking note of the said fact, the jurisdictional
authority passed the detention order. According to the
learned counsel, when action under the ordinary criminal
law itself is sufficient to prevent further repetition of
criminal activities by the detenu, an action under the
preventive detention law is not at all necessitated.
36. It is a settled principle that preventive detention cannot be
resorted to where the ordinary criminal law provides
adequate safeguards to prevent the repetition of criminal
activities. However, the mere fact that proceedings under
Section 129 of the BNSS have been initiated or that the
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:29:-
2026:KER:54247
person has executed a bond thereunder cannot, by itself,
operate as a bar against the exercise of powers under the
preventive detention law, if the Detaining Authority, upon
due consideration of the materials on record, arrives at a
subjective satisfaction that such proceedings are
insufficient to effectively prevent the person from acting in
a manner prejudicial to public order. An action under
Section 129 of the BNSS and preventive detention
measures under the KAA(P)A are separate and distinct as
rightly held by this Court in the case of Mallika v. State
of Kerala8.
37. Although we are unable to accept the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the mere initiation of
the proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS, by itself,
precluded the Detaining Authority from invoking the
8
2026 SCC OnLine Ker 355
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:30:-
2026:KER:54247
provisions under the KAA(P)A, we have already found that
the impugned order of detention suffers from other serious
legal infirmities such as unexplained delay in submitting
the proposal for preventive detention and in passing the
order of detention thereby snapping the live and proximate
link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the object
sought to be achieved by the detention. Further, the supply
of illegible copies of the relied-upon documents has
deprived the detenu of his valuable right under Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India to make an effective
representation against the order of detention.
38. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Exhibit-P2
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of
Central Prison, Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu,
Sri. Fayis Mubasheer, forthwith, if his detention is not
required in connection with any other case.
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:31:-
2026:KER:54247
39. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, forthwith.
40. The records produced in the sealed cover shall be returned
to the learned Senior Government Pleader forthwith.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
krj
CNR: KLHC010274612026
W.P.(Crl.) No.589/2026 -:32:-
2026:KER:54247
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 589 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 31.12.2025 SUBMITTED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO. DCMPM/170/2026-S1
DATED 22-01-2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ILLEGIBLE COPY OF PAGES NO.68, 69, 70, 109,
110, 111 AND 112 OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE
SPONSORING AUTHORITY TO THE DETENU.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.
