Basant, J.

Has the mind of the Detaining Authority been applied alertly and properly to the question whether the detenu deserves to be detained under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the `KAAPA')? This is the only question that we have to consider in this case.

2. Petitioner is the wife of Santhosh @ Santhu, against whom an order of preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the KAAPA has been passed by the 2nd respondent. In this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner prays that her husband may be directed to be produced before Court and released after setting aside Ext.P2 order of detention dated 16.02.2009.

3. A brief resume of facts leading to Ext.P2 order of detention appears to be necessary. The petitioner's husband was involved in as many as 5 crimes, vitally the relevant details of which are given below.

i) Crime No.462 of 2004 - incident on 25.04.04.

ii) Crime No.1012 of 2004 - incident on 05.10.2004.

iii) Crime No.70 of 2007 - incident on 20.10.2007.

iv) Crime No.220 of 2007 - incident on 20.03.2007.

v) Crime No.336 of 2007 - incident on 15.05.2007.

4. In one of these cases, ie. Crime No.1012 of 2004, his plea of guilty was accepted and he was convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. In the other crimes prosecutions were pending before courts.

5. While so, the 3rd respondent, the sponsoring authority submitted report dated 02.06.2008 to the detaining authority, ie. the 2nd respondent herein suggesting that the detenu may be detained under Section 3 of the KAAPA on the ground that he is "a known rowdy" and is currently involved in antisocial activities. That report dated 02.06.08 was received by the detaining authority. But the 2nd respondent, the detaining authority, was evidently not satisfied that an order of detention deserves to be passed on the basis of such report. The detaining authority found that there was no crime registered against the detenu during the year 2008 and therefore directed the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh. The 3rd respondent was directed to further enquire and submit a report.

6. The 3rd respondent thereupon appears to have secured a report from the Sub Inspector of Police of the local Police Station. That report dt.13.12.2008 is available in the record. Translated roughly; it reads as follows:

"I refer to the letter under reference. I have enquired about Santhosh @ Santhu. It is understood that he is not in judicial custody now. But it is clear that he is engaging himself in anti-social activities and goondaism. He is in constant contact with his associates in earlier crimes. He is one having such a bad character that he will not hesitate to commit any act of cruelty. He is overtly and covertly working with spurious liquor lobby, hawala transactors and blade mafia. Further he engages himself in activities to generate communal hatred. This matter is reported".

7. On receipt of the said report, the 3rd respondent submitted a communication dated 16.12.2008 No.843/SB-KSD/08. The contents of which we extract below:

"Kind attention is invited to the above cited reference.

The counter petitioner N.Santhosh @ Santhu is not in judicial custody at present. He is currently involved in antisocial activities directly or indirectly. But he is not involved in any criminal cases directly in 2008. Hence, I request that orders may be issued detaining the counter petitioner at the earliest.

Report of S.I Kasargod is enclosed herewith."

8. After receipt of the said report from the 3rd respondent enclosing the report of the S.I of police, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P2 order of detention dt.16.02.2009. It will be apposite to note that after Ext.P1 and before Ext.P2, 2 of the 5 cases referred above have ended in acquittal (Crime No.336 of 2007 by an order of acquittal on merits and Crime No.220 of 2007 on the basis of composition).

9. The detenu was arrested on 18.0