V. Shircy, J.

1. The petitioner, the wife of one Jomson@Jomon who is detained in Central Prison Viyyur as 'known rowdy' as per an order dated 17.04.20017 of the District Magistrate (for short 'detaining authority') under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA' in short) seeks to set aside the order by filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The District Magistrate, who is the 2nd respondent, has issued Ext.P1 detention order on 17.04.2017 under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA on the basis of Ext.P3 report of the 3rd respondent, the District Police Chief and the Sponsoring Authority. The 4th respondent was entrusted to execute the order and the detenu was detained in prison on 26.05.2017 on the basis of the detention order. Ext.P1 detention order was approved by the Government on 03.06.2017 and the Advisory Board rejected his representation and the order was confirmed by the Government on 12.07.2017. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred this petition raising the following relief’s : -

“(i) Set aside Ext.P1 order issued against the detenu udner Section 3(1) of the kerala anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007,

(ii) issue a writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of Sri. Jomson before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu at liberty forthwith; and

(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the petitioner prays later or as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary to issue in the interest of justice.

3. We heard Sri. Vipin Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.

4. The detaining authority has reckoned five cases for issuing the detention order against the detenu. The details of the cases mentioned in Ext.P1 order are as follows:

Sl. No	Police Station and Crime No.	Date and Time	Offence	Stage
1	Punnapra Police Station Crime No. 826/29011	11/12/11	Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 333, 427 & 307 IPC	Pending trial
2	Punnapra Police Station Crime No. 1040/2013	20/10/2013	Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 294(b), 333, 427 & 307 IPC	Pending trial
3	Punnapra Police Station Crime No. 1050/2013	23/10/2013	Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 324, 326 & 308 of IPC	Pending trial
4	Punnapra Police Station Crime No.38/2015	19/1/2015	Sections143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 307, 332 IPC	Pending trial
5	Punnapra Police Station Crime No.955/2016	19/10/2016	143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.	Investigation

5. Out of the five cases except Crime No. 955/2016, all cases are pending for trial. In Crime No. 955/2016 the investigation is in process.

6. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 detention order projecting various grounds. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P1 order is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and the same was passed without application of mind by the detaining authority, simply accepting the Report of the sponsoring authority, the Police Chief, and so it is liable to be set aside. Though various grounds are urged the point stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainants in Crime Nos. 826/2011 and 38/2015 are Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police and hence the two cases could not be considered in view of the specific bar under Section 2 P(iii) of KAAPA and inclusion of those cases to bring the detenu within the sweep of the definition of 'known rowdy' itself indicates that there was non-application of mind and that the detaining authority erred grossly in passing the detention order. It is also argued that the order was issued in violation of Sect