High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Under KAA(P) Act Despite Prior BNSS Peace Bond

A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian heard a writ petition challenging an order of detention dated 03.09.2025 under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The petition was filed by the mother of the detenue to impugn confirmation of the detention by the Government on 12.11.2025 after consideration by the Advisory Board.

The Bench dismissed the petition and upheld the detaining authority’s decision, holding that the order was passed after due application of mind and on the basis of the detenue’s recurring involvement in criminal activity. The court recorded that seven prior cases formed the basis for the detention and that there was no unreasonable delay in initiating preventive proceedings. The court noted that the execution of a bond under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 did not preclude proceedings under the KAA(P) Act and that it was open to the detaining authority to decide the necessity of detention despite a subsisting bond. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS, and action under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act operate in different spheres. Under Section 129 of the BNSS, a person is only called to furnish security for his good behaviour. On the other hand, under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, a person who has criminal antecedents is detained so as to prevent him from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, action under the KAA(P) Act is more effective and operates in a totally different sphere. It is for the detaining authority to decide whether action under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is necessary against a person who had already executed a bond under Section 129 of the BNSS, and proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS will in no way preclude the jurisdictional authority from initiating proceedings under the KAA(P) Act." The court also recorded that "the jurisdictional authority was fully cognizant of the fact that the detenu had executed a bond under Section 129 of the BNSS" and that the impugned order stated the detenu "has been consistently involved in serious criminal activities."

Background

The writ petition arose after a proposal dated 31.07.2025, forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, led the District Magistrate to initiate preventive detention proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act. The last prejudicial incident was alleged to have occurred on 03.05.2025 and was registered as Crime No.632/2025 at Nemom Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The detenue was arrested on 14.05.2025 and remained in judicial custody until he secured bail on 07.07.2025. A peace bond under Section 129 BNSS was executed before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate on 30.07.2025 for a period of three years.

The jurisdictional authority passed the detention order on 03.09.2025, noting the detenue’s repeated involvement in criminality since 2019 and recording that even the security measures under Section 129 BNSS would not alter his criminal attitude. The Government confirmed the detention on 12.11.2025 after the Advisory Board’s report dated 31.10.2025. The petitioner argued that the prior bond and the availability of lesser measures rendered detention unnecessary; the State contended that the requisite subjective and objective satisfaction existed. The High Court found that the proceedings under Section 129 BNSS and preventive detention under the KAA(P) Act operated in different spheres, that the detaining authority had considered the bond and other materials, and that there was no infirmity in passing the detention order. The petition was dismissed and no interim relief was granted.

Case Details: Case No.: WP(Crl.) No. 80 of 2026 Case Title: Sunitha S. v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri J. Vishnu, Advocate; Smt. Anu Balakrishnan Nambiar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Sri K.A. Anas, Public Prosecutor