The main legal point established is that transparent non-application of mind by the detaining authority vitiates a detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.

Mr. K.M. Joseph, J.

Petitioner is the mother of the detenu detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner's son has been detained vide Ext.P1 order passed by the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.8.2011. Ext.P1 order was preceded by Report of the Superintendent of Police dated 28.7.2011. There are six crimes referred to as the basis for the order of detention. They are as follows:

(I) Crime No.18/07 of Neyyar Dam Police Station under Section 323, 324 & 34 IPC. The incident allegedly took place on 19.1.2007. The case is said to be charge sheeted and pending trial. It is alleged that the detenu and his associates manhandled the complainant brutally.

(ii) Crime No.190/07 of Neyyar Dam Police Station under Section 27 of the Arms Act. We may straightaway say that though they were referred to by the Superintendent of Police, the order of detention reveals that they are not considered by the detaining authority. Therefore, we need refer the other four crimes. They are as follows:

(iii) Crime No.27/08 of Neyyar Dam Police Station under Section 452, 427, 323 & 354 of IPC. The incident was that the detenue broke into the house of the complainant with cudgel, abused and assaulted the complainant and her family members and tore her clothes in a manner outraging her modesty on 9.2.2008 at 6 P.M.

(iv) Crime No.417/2010 of Neyyardam Police Station under Section 451, 354, 506 (i) & 294 (b) of IPC. The allegation is that the detenue and his associates criminally entered into the observation room of the hospital run by the complainant, abused, pushed and intimidated her in the manner outraging her modesty on 25.11.2010. The case was charge sheeted and pending trial.

(v) Crime No.220/2011 of Neyyardam Police Station. In the order of detention it is stated to be under Section 506 (i) & 344 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. We will have to refer this later as much may turn on the said case.

(vi) Crime No.368/2011 of Neyyardam Police Station under Section 341 & 324 of IPC. The allegation is that the detenue restrained the complainant, manhandled him and hit his head with stone.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is delay in executing the order of detention, that there were Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings initiated and all that is stated in the order is that security proceedings under Section 107 is under process and no notice or bond has been executed till date. In other words, his contention is that Section 107 proceedings were sufficient to arrest the activities of the detenu. The last point which the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge is as follows: There is clear non-application of mind by the Magistrate. In Crime No.220/2011 the allegation against the detenu was that he and his associate drove the car into a procession conducted in connection with the festival of Siva Temple, Paruthipally and created a horrifying situation in procession by intimidating the people pointing swords on 8.3.2011 at 8.30 P.M. It is stated further that after completing investigation the case was charge sheeted before JFCM Kattakada. He would contend that when the Superintendent of Police submitted Report it is stated that the case is under investigation. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 order is passed on 13.8.2011. By the time the Magistrate would state that the case was charge sheeted. He would point out that there is no date for the charge sheet. More importantly, he would contend that the charge sheet will clearly show that the Investigating Officer has found that no offence is made out under the Arms Act. Yet, the District Magistrate after referring to the charge sheet still proceeds on the basis that the original Report of the Superintendent of Police continues to hold good, that is to say, when the time the Repor