Ameena Ameer v. State of Kerala: Preventive Detention Order under KAA(P) Act.

Headnote:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (“KAA(P) Act”), against a person in judicial custody for the last prejudicial activity. The Court held that preventive detention is permissible under the “triple test” established by the Supreme Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (1991), even when the detenu is in custody, provided the authority is satisfied that there is a real possibility of bail and that release would likely result in further prejudicial activity.

Background:

1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, challenging Ext.P1 detention order dated 21.08.2025.
2. The detenu was ordered detained for six months by the 2nd respondent, confirmed by the Government on 17.10.2025.
3. The last prejudicial activity was recorded in Crime No. 739/2025 (Karunagapally Police Station) under Sections 61(2), 351, 332(a), 118(1), 103(1) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act.
4. Detenu was the 8th accused in the case and had been under judicial custody since 29.03.2025.
5. Nine previous cases were considered in passing the preventive detention order.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

1. Detention order passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity; hence, the “triple test” of Kamarunnissa should be satisfied.
2. Delay in initiating proceedings and passing the order broke the causal link with the last prejudicial activity.
3. Some relied-upon documents served were illegible, preventing an effective representation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Detention order was passed after proper application of mind, satisfying the objective and subjective conditions.
2. Authority was aware of judicial custody, and there was a real possibility that the detenu, if released on bail, would indulge in prejudicial activities.
3. Minimal delay in proposal and order is inconsequential; the detenu had repeated criminal activities after the first detention period.
4. All served documents were legible, with endorsements signed by the detenu acknowledging receipt.

Court’s Observations:

1. Preventive detention can be valid against a person in judicial custody if:
2. The authority is aware the person is in custody.
3. There is reliable material showing a real possibility of release on bail and likely prejudice if released.
4. Detention is necessary to prevent repetition of criminal acts.
5. Detention order explicitly satisfied these conditions.
6. Delay in processing the order did not break the link with last prejudicial activity.
7. Records confirmed all documents served were legible.

Judgment:

1. Writ petition dismissed.
2. Detention order under KAA(P) Act is legally valid.

Legal Principles Applied

1. Section 3(1), Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
2. Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 128 – preventive detention and judicial custody.
3. Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 2 SCC 337
4. Union of India v. Paul Manickam (2003) 8 SCC 342

Appendix / Exhibits

1. Exhibit P1: Detention Order DCKLM/6274/2025/M16 dated 21.08.2025
2. Exhibit P2–P4: Petitioner’s representations to respondents and Government order

Citation: 2025:KER:88265

Case: Ameena Ameer v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jobin Sebastian

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025

Writ Petition No.: WP(Crl.) 1504 of 2025