IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
RAJULA W/O SHAMSUDHEEN – Petitioner
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 740 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 3(1), 2(a), (j), (o) - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(B) - Detention Order - Habeas Corpus - Seeking issuance of Habeas Corpus and quashment, which are involving challenge against a detention order passed against detenu - He could secure bail and one of bail conditions was that he shall not commit any offence while on bail.
Findings of the Court:
In all previous cases, accused has violated bail conditions - Matter will have to be duly taken note of, more so, particularly taking into account that case involved is in contravention of NDPS Act - Further, a reading of Ext.P2 detention order, given on page 200 of paper book, would clearly show that detaining authority has clearly stated therein that condition in bail orders could not be sufficient to prevent commission of further prejudicial anti-social activities by detenu and that detaining authority is satisfied, regarding that crucial aspect of matter - Judgment in Shajitha Suneer's case supra shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases, including in respect of respondent therein - In light of these aspects Court is not in a position to agree to second contention of petitioner - In other words, no successful grounds are made out to invoke judicial review remedy in facts of this case - Further, it is also well established that judicial review of subjective satisfaction, in cases of this nature, cannot be on basis of sufficiency or otherwise of reasons and materials which led to subjective satisfaction.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking the issuance of Habeas Corpus and quashment, which are involving the challenge against a detention order passed against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAP Act), are as follows:
(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order direction quashing Exhibits.P2 and P4 Orders dated passed against the detenue. (sic)
(iii) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time.”
2. Heard Shri U. Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu involved in this case, who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAP Act).
4. In the instant case, the District Police Chief, Palakkad, has submitted Ext.P1 report dated 25.03.2022, recommending to the 1st respondent-District Collector and District Magistrate, Palakkad (authorised detaining authority) that, in view of the details furnished therein, it is a fit case to issue order, preventively detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the above Act, with a view to prevent him from committing further anti-social activities, as envisaged in Section 2(a) of the above Act. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent-detaining authority has, after consideration, issued Ext.P2 detention order dated 17.05.2022, under Section 3(1) of the Act, ordering for the detention of the detenu. The details of the three cases, taken into account by the 1st respondent-detaining authority, in the issuance of Ext.P2 detention order are stated in the said detention order and the same has also been extracted in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent (State Government), more particularly in Para 7 thereof on pages 4 and 5 thereof. Since there are no factual disputes regarding the details of the said three cases, the same are extracted from Para 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit of R2, which read as follows:
The case was that on 26.09.2020, at Virinjapaadam, 1.1 kg of Ganja was recovered from autorickshaw driven by the detenue (sic). The petitioner is the only accused in the case and was given conditional bail in the case. The case was pending trial before the Hon'ble Sessions Court. Palakkad as SC 172/2021, at the time of issue of detention order.
(ii) Crime No. 701/2021 of Pudunagaram Police Station u/s 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act (Date of Occurrence: 29.10.2021):
The case was that between 29.10.2021 at 6.30 P.M. at Kaarattukalambu, the detenue was found in possession of 30g of Ganja in his pocket. The petitioner is the only accused in the case and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000 under NDPS Act and Rs.2000 under KP Act by the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur in CC No. 691/2021.
(iii) Crime No. 40/2022 of Kollengode Police Station u/s 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act (Date of Occurrence : 22.01.2022):
The case was that on 22.01.2022, at Bus Stand Road Junction, Kollengode, the detenu and others were trafficking 4.060 kg Ganja on motorcycle for selling it. The petitioner is the second accused in the case and was given conditional bail in the case. The case is under investigation.”
5. Further it appears that, in pursuance to Ext.P2 detention order dated 17.05.2022, report was submitted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent-Government on 17.05.2022. Ext.P2 order was executed by the arrest and detention of
Anita Antony vs. State of Kerala
Sameena Beevi vs. State of Kerala and Others
Detenu will satisfy definitional parameters of “known goonda” as per Section 2(o) read with Section 2(j) of Act.
Expression “compelling reasons” in context of making an order for preventive detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent materials before detaining authority.
If person concerned is in judicial custody and if there is likelihood of his being released shortly, then detaining authority may stay its chance for a short while and think of passing an order of de....
Law is well settled that legal parameters should be fulfilled by detaining authority to justify a case of preventive detention, where an accused is already under judicial remand in a crime.
Section 2(p) of Act reads as “known rowdy” means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within previous seven years as calculated from date of order imposing any restriction or detention un....
Preventive detention is valid even if the detenu is in judicial custody if the authority proves likelihood of bail and potential criminal activity upon release.
Point of Law : Order should be passed under Section 3(1) to preventively detain detenu as he is likely to commit further prejudicial anti-social activities.
It is well settled that an order of detention can be validly passed against a person, who is already in custody, subject to condition that detaining authority must necessarily be aware of fact that d....
Point of Law : Detenue is already in custody in some other case, at time when the preventive detention order was passed, and should also satisfy the other parameter
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.