Mohanan, J.

Hopefully pointing out the grievance of the petitioner regarding the alleged illegal detention of her husband namely Sri. Bruce.S. Pothanikkatt, Keerambara, the petitioner approached this court by filing the above writ petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to issue a writ of hebeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the aforesaid person-the husband of the petitioner before this Court and to set him at liberty forthwith. It is also prayed to declare that the detention of her husband under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (Act 34 of 2007) (hereinafter referred to for short as ‘the Act’ only) is violative of Articles 14,19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as the procedural safeguards have been violated.

2. Theallegations in the writ petition as its original form are as follows:-

According to the petitioner, she read from the newspaper on the morning of 3.2008 that her husband, the above named, has been implicated under the Act without any justification. According to her, the husband was taken from their house at Keerampar between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on 3rd March 2008 by two Policemen attached to the Kotamangalam Police Station. When the Police was taking the petitioner’s husband, she heard the Policemen telling her husband that the Sub Inspector of Police wanted to see him. Thus, from that time onwards, the petitioner’s husband, she heard the Policemen telling her husband that the Sub Inspector of Police wanted to see him. Thus, from that time onwards, the petitioner’s husband is under illegal custody of the Police and she had also come to know from the newspaper that proceedings are likely to be initiated under the provisions of the Act against her husband. It is averred that the petitioner’s husband cannot be included under the aforesaid Act as he will not fall within any of the expressions under Section 2 of the Act or he was not engaged in any antisocial activities. She had admitted that the petitioner’s husband has been involved in two cases of cheating and one case in relation to lifting of sand. According to the petitioner, her husband had gone to the house of one Maneesha Sumesh at Inchathotty not for any criminal purposes, but to object their criminal activities and due to tremendous influence exerted by them on the Police, the case was converted to an attempt to outrage the modesty of a Woman though the husband of the said lady was there at the house shortly after 7 p.m. It is the further case of the petitioner that some Police Officers attached to the Kothamangalam Police Station were inimical towards the husband of the petitioner. It is asserted by the petitioner that she has reasons to believe that the arrest and detention of her husband by the Kothamangalam Police on 3rd March,2008 is the result of personal animosity entertained against her husband by some Police Officers and there is absolutely no reason to attract the provisions of the above Act against the petitioner’s husband. Thus, according to the petitioner, the detention of her husband will amount to violation of his fundamental rights and the same is unsupported by any law. It is also averred that no orders contemplated under the relevant Act has been issued in accordance with the provisions. Therefore, according to her, the detention of her husband is patently violative of Articles 14,19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Thus, according to the petitioner, the continued detention of her husband is absolutely illegal, and he is entitled to be released forthwith and she is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition.

3. In the grounds especially under ground (a), it is urged that the arrest and taking into custody of her husband by the two Policemen from the Kothamangalam Police Station are absolutely illegal and no order under S