K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. Naveen Suresh, son of the petitioner, was detained in execution of Ext. P1 order of detention dated 21.3.2015 issued by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA'), on the ground that he is a 'known rowdy' as defined in the KAAPA. The order of detention was executed on 2.4.2015. Naveen Suresh is undergoing detention. In the Writ Petition, the order of detention as well as the continued detention are under challenge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention is vitiated on several grounds. We shall discuss hereunder the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is stated in the order of detention that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the detenu in the year 2014. Even thereafter, the detenu indulged in criminal activities which resulted in the registration of Crime No. 1068 of 2014 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station and Crime No. 1511 of 2014 of Kattakada Police Station. In the order of detention, the satisfaction of the detaining authority is recorded to the effect that initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.C. would not deter the detenu from indulging in criminal activities. The contention of the petitioner is that in the nature of the crimes registered against the detenu, the appropriate proceedings would have been under Section 110 Cr. P.C. instead of Section 107 Cr. P.C. Had proceedings under Section 110 Cr. P.C. been taken against the detenu, that would have been sufficient deterrent against the detenu. The detaining authority did not advert to this aspect at all and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction is vitiated.

3. It is apposite to refer to the crimes registered against the detenu while dealing with the above contention. Ten crimes were registered against the detenu during the period 2013-2014, the details of which are shown below:-

4. The details of the crimes mentioned in the grounds of detention would show that, in many cases, the detenu was indulging mainly in snatching gold chains particularly from women in public road, shop etc. It is also alleged that the detenu and his associates used to travel on motor bike for commission of the crime. It was also found that even the motorbike was a stolen one.

5. It may be true that proceedings under Section 110 Cr. P.C. could be initiated against the detenu for keeping good behavior, since the allegation would show that he is by habit a thief. At the same time, it cannot be said that proceedings could not be initiated against the detenu under Section 107 Cr. P.C., in the facts and circumstances of the case. The narration of the events in the crimes registered against the petitioner would indicate that there are sufficient materials to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu is a person likely to commit any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. It is for the authority initiating proceedings under Section 107 or Section 110 Cr. P.C. to decide whether proceedings should be initiated against the pe