Point of Law: 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 detenu is already in detention.

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:

“(i) Issue a writ of Habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of Sameem V.V. the husband of the petitioner, and release him from illegal detention.

(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:

The sponsoring authority in this case, the District Superintendent of Police, Kannur, has furnished report dated 04.04.2022 to the 2nd respondent (District Magistrate cum District Collector, Kannur), recommending that, based on the materials mentioned therein, it is a fit case to enable the 2nd respondent to issue orders, preventively detaining the above detenu under Section 3(1) of the Act, so as to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities, as understood in Section 2(a) of the Act. After consideration of the said report of the sponsoring authority, the 2nd respondent (District Magistrate cum District Collector, Kannur), who is the authorised detaining authority in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act, has issued the impugned Ext.P6 detention order dated 27.04.2022, ordering that, based on the materials, he is satisfied that it is a fit case to issue orders under Section 3(1) of the Act to preventively detain the detenu, with a view to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities. Further, the 1st respondent (State Government) has approved Ext.P6 detention order dated 27.04.2022 on 13.05.2022. Ext.P6 detention order was executed on 29.04.2022. Thereafter, Ext.P6 detention order has been approved, as per Ext.P2 order dated 13.05.2022. Later, the Government has referred the matter to the statutory Advisory Board for their opinion, as mandated under Section 9 of the Act, on 19.05.2022. In pursuance thereof, the Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu, has rendered their report on 22.06.2022, recommending to the Government that there is sufficient cause for the preventive detention of the detenu, as per Ext.P6. Later, the Government has issued Ext.P5 order dated 07.07.2022, confirming Ext.P6 detention order and fixing the period of detention of the detenu as six months from the date of detention (29.04.2022). The sponsoring authority and the 2nd respondent-detaining authority have altogether reckoned nine criminal cases, in which the detenu has been involved, the details of which have been given in Ext.P6 detention order as well as in the separate counter affidavits filed by the 1st respondent (State Government) and the 2nd respondent (detaining authority). There are no serious disputes regarding those crimes and the factual allegations raised therein, and also as to the fact that the detenu would fulfill the definitional parameters of ‘known rowdy’ as per Section 2(p)(iii) read with Section 2(t) of the Act. Hence, there is no necessity for us to examine as to whether the detenu would fulfill the parameters of ‘known rowdy’ as per Section 2(p).

5. Sri. P.K. Ravisankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has essentially raised two grounds in support of his plea, for quashment of the impugned Ext.P6 detention order, as confirmed by Ext.P5 order.

6. The first ground is th