Point of Law: 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 preventive detention, despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention and that detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and that after that he is likely to indulge in further prejudicial anti-social activities etc.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The prayers in the instant writ petition (Criminal) seeking for writs of Habeas Corpus and quashment in relation to the challenge against the detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 are as follows:

“(i) A writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to produce the person of the detenu Pradeepkumar P. S/o Babu, Padmar House, Agalpady, Kumbadaje P.O. Umrangala Village, Kasargode District, Kerala before this Hon’ble Court and to set him at his liberty forthwith.

(ii) Declare that Ext.P1 detention order and the detention pursuant to the same is illegal and vitiated.

(iii) To dispense with the production of English Translations of the documents in vernacular produced in this Writ Petition (Crl) in vernacular language.

(iv) Such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri.Sojan Michael, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Sri. P. Pradeep Kumar, who has been ordered to be preventively detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) [KAA(P)] Act, 2007 involved in this case. The brief facts leading into this case are as follows.

3. The 3rd respondent District Police Chief who is the sponsoring authority has sent Ext.P3 report dated 06.04.2022 to the 2nd respondent District Collector and District Magistrate, recommending that in view of the aspects stated in the said report, it is a fit case to invoke the discretion under Section 3(1) of the above Act so as to preventively detain the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Act as otherwise he is very likely to engage in further serious prejudicial anti social activities as envisaged in Section 2(a) of the Act. After consideration of the said report, the 2nd respondent District Collector cum District Magistrate who is the authorized detaining authority in terms of Section 3(3), has issued the impugned Ext.P1 detention order dated 21.05.2022 ordering that the detenu would fulfill the essential parameters of ‘known rowdy’ as per Section 2(p) of the Act and that the 2nd respondent is satisfied on the materials that it is necessary to issue order under Section 3(1) of the Act so as to preventively detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from committing further prejudicial anti-social activities. Ext.P1 detention order was executed on 25.05.2022. According to the 2nd respondent, he has forthwith sent Ext.P1 detention order along with all relevant documents to the 1st respondent State Government on 21.05.2022 itself. Further that Ext.P1 detention order was approved by the 1st respondent State Government on 09.06.2022. Further, the 1st respondent State Government had referred the matter to the statutory Advisory Board on 10.06.2022 for latter’s opinion. The Advisory Board after affording opportunity of hearing to the detenu has submitted their report dated 15.07.2022 to the State Government recommending that there is sufficient cause to detain the detenu. Thereafter, the 1st respondent State Government has issued Ext.P4 order dated 21.07.2022 confirming Ext.P1 detention order under Section 10(4) of the Act and thereby fixing that the period of detention would be six months from the date of detention.

4. There are no serious disputes that going by the facts and figures given in Ext.P1 detention order that the detenu would satisfy the essential parameters of ‘known rowdy’ as per Section 2(p)(iii) read with Section 2(t) of the Act. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to get into the details as to whether the detenu would fulfill the essential parameters of Section 2(p) of the Act.

5. Sri. Sojan Michael, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has essentially raised two grounds. The first ground is that indisputably, the detenu was in judicial custody from 10.05.2022 onwards in co