The duty of the detaining authority to consider court orders and conditions imposed while releasing the detenu on bail is essential in cases of preventive detention. Non-compliance with these considerations renders the detention order unconstitutional.

Antony Dominic, J.

The petitioner is the daughter of Rajan Nair @ Nilavarassery Rajan. She has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1, an order issued by the second respondent exercising his powers under the Kerala Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007, detaining Sri. Rajan Nair (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu' for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the detenu is an accused in Crime No.213/2007 of Kariyilakulangara Police Station, Crime Nos.129/2012, 130/2012, and 70/2013 of the Chengannoor Excise Office and Crime No.872/2012 of the Mannar Police Station. Pointing out the involvement of the detenu in the above five criminal cases and also highlighting the necessity to keep him in preventive detention to prevent him continuing his anti-social activities, the third respondent submitted Ext.P3 report, under Section 3 (1) of the Act to the second respondent. On the basis of the information thus received and considering the other materials that were also made available to him the second respondent passed Ext.P1 order, classifying the detenu as a 'known goonda' as defined under Section 2 (o) of the Act and ordering his detention under Section 3 (2) of the Act in order to prevent him from continuing anti-social activities, which expression is also defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act. In execution of Ext.P1 order, the detenue was arrested and detained from 31.01.2014 and since then he is in detention at the Viyyoor Central Jail. The detention was approved by the Government as provided under Section 3 (3) and based on the report of the Advisory Board the detention was also confirmed by the Government, as provided under Section 10 of the Act. It is in this background the writ petition is filed.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution who appeared for the respondents.

4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in Ext.P1 order, it has been stated that the detenu is under judicial custody and that once he is released from custody he will continue to be a threat to the society. It is stated that though the order has been passed on that basis, in crime Nos.872/2013 and 70/2013 the detenu was granted bail by Exts.P19 and P20 orders and that he was released from judicial custody on 16.01.2014 itself. Therefore it is argued that the detaining authority was unaware of the orders granting bail to the detenu and that it was without considering the conditions imposed by the trial court that the detaining authority has ordered that the detenu be detained. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered the detention order illegal and unconstitutional.

5. However according to the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, who appeared for the respondents, detenu is a person against whom proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act were initiated and that even thereafter the detenu continued his anti-social activities. Therefore, according to him, even in spite of the conditions imposed by the trial court in Ext.P20 order releasing the detenu from Crime No.70/2013 of the Excise Office Chengannur, there was every likelihood that the detenu would still continue his anti-social activities. On this basis, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution contended that the fact that the conditions imposed in Ext.P20 were not considered by the detaining authority did not in any manner invalidate the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is a person who deserved to be preventively detained.

6. In cases where orders of preventive detention are issued, it is the settled position of law that the sponsoring authority should make available all relevant materials to the detaining authority and that the detaining authority shall consider each of those materials while arriving at a conclusion on the necessity to preventiv