2018 Supreme(Ker) 416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, ASHOK MENON, JJ.
Joseph Sebastin S/o. Sebastian – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.).No. 221 of 2018
Decided On : 20-07-2018
For the Petitioner: Sri. C. Rajendran, Sri. B.K. Gopalakrishnan, Sri. R. Reghuthaman
For the Respondent: Suresh Babu Thomas, Addl. Director General of Prosecution Adv. K.A. Anus, Government Pleader
Headnote:Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (Kerala), Sections 7(2) and 7(3) - Constitution of India, Art. 22(5) - It was obligatory upon the Government to go through the illustration made before approving the command of custody as Depiction made by the detentu to the Advisory Board has been advanced to the Government sideways with the report of the Advisory Board.
Ashok Menon, J.
Brother of a detenu named Jose Sebastian @ Jose @ Anoop is the petitioner, who seeks protection of the detenu by directing his production under a writ of habeas corpus and to set him at liberty.
2. The detenu has been detained in execution of Ext.P1 detention order dated 26.1.2018 of the District Magistrate, Alappuzha under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAPA’ for short). The grounds for the detention order are mentioned in Ext.P2. It was on the basis of Ext.P4 report filed by the District Police Chief that Ext.P1 detention order was made and for executing the order of detention Ext.P3 memo was issued. The detenu is undergoing detention since 07-02-2018.
3. The detenu had four crimes registered against him at Alappuzha North Police Station. In three of those crimes, final reports have been submitted, while the fourth crime is under investigation.
4. The earliest of those crimes against the detenu was registered on 22-12-2013, as Crime No.1868/2013, the FIR of which is Ext.P5. The second crime against the detenu was registered as Crime No.392/2015, as per Ext.P9 FIR registered on 31-03- 2015. The third time the detenu got on the wrong side of the law is when Ext.P13 FIR was registered on 01-10- 2016 in Crime 1486/2016. On completion of the investigation, Exts.P8, P12 and P15 final reports were respectively filed in the aforesaid three crimes.
5. Considering the frequent involvement of the detenu in criminal cases, the Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North Police Station initiated proceedings against him under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by registering Ext.P20 FIR as Crime 130/2017, on 24-01-2017. Vide Ext.P21, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed execution of a bond wherein the detenu undertook to keep peace as required under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C; which stood executed on 05-04-2017.
6. Despite the execution of the bond to keep peace, the detenu got himself involved in the fourth crime, which is registered as Crime No.1567/2017 on 04-09-2017 vide Ext.P16 FIR. The detenu and the other co-accused moved for bail before the Sessions Court and obtained bail as per Ext.P19 order.
7. When, despite execution of the bond to keep peace under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C the detenu got involved in Ext.P16 Crime, the District Police Chief filed Ext.P4 report for initiating the proceedings under the KAAPA against the detenu resulting in Ext.P1 detention order being passed by the District Magistrate.
8. The petitioner has taken up several grounds to assail Ext.P1 detention order.
9. The first ground urged is that the name of the detenu is not Joseph, but in several crimes referred to above, he has been referred to as Joseph. In fact, he is only known by the name Jose @ Anoop, and Joseph is the name of the petitioner who is his brother. Hence, it is pointed out that it is a clear case of mistaken identity. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to impress upon this Court that the police authorities are totally confused about the identity of the detenu and that the District Magistrate has not considered this aspect of mistaken identity in Magistrate directed execution of a bond wherein the detenu undertook to keep peace as required under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C; which stood executed on 05-04-2017. Ext.P1 order. The fact remains that the detenu is actually an accused only in crime No.1567/2017 in which the petitioner is also an accused and they along with other co-accused are granted bail vide Ext.P19 order.
10. The second ground to assail Ext.P1 detention order taken out by the petitioner is that there is unreasonable delay of five months between the last prejudicial activity and Ext.P1 detention order. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming regarding the delay in initiating the proceedings under the KAAPA. There is also delay on the part of the District Magistrate in making the order of detention and therefore, Ext.P1 order needs to be set