ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS
RISHADA HARIS K. P. W/O SAMEEM V. V. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers, as amended, in the afore captioned W.P. (Crl.) seeking for writs of Habeas Corpus and quashment in relation to the challenge mounted against the preventive detention of the detenu in this case, are as follows:
(ia) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P5 and P6 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibits P5 and P6.
(ii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.
(iii) Award cost of this proceedings.”
2. Heard Sri. P.K. Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein is the wife of Sri. V.V Sameem, who has been ordered to be preventively detained, in terms of Ext.P6 detention order dated 27.04.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAP Act).
4. The brief facts leading to this case are as follows:
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat vs. Union of India and Others
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....
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.
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.
detention order will not in any manner even remotely show that the detaining authority, after consideration of the said crucial aspect has found that there are compelling reasons justifying the preve....
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.
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
Detenu will satisfy definitional parameters of “known goonda” as per Section 2(o) read with Section 2(j) of Act.
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....
Sec.3(3) mandates that Government shall take a decision on approval of detention order, within 12 days from date of detention of detenu, after excluding public holidays.
Statutory compliance is essential in preventive detention; mere allegations of delay and non-compliance with procedural safeguards do not automatically invalidate the order.
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.