Back
SOPHY THOMAS, ALEXANDER THOMAS
RAJULA W/O SHAMSUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD – Respondent
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 t
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
