ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS
Kashmira – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By the Chief Secretary To Government, Home Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The prayers in the instant writ petition seeking for writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari in regard to the challenge against the preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act 2007 KAA(P) Act, 2007 are as follows:
(ii) Issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the b0dy of the detenu viz. Adarsh Chandrasekharan, S/o.Chandrasekharan Nair, Aged 25 years, Madappilly House, Amballoor Kara, Amballoor Village, Ernakulam, the husband of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Kannur before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
(iii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Criminal).
(iv) Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.
2. Heard Sri.Ajesh M. Ummer, learned counsel appearing for the pet
Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs Union of India & Others
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India
Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur and others
Kamarunnisa v. Union of India and another
N. Meera Rani v. Govt. of T.N.
Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and another
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.
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
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.
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.
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....
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....
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.
Detention under preventive laws can validly occur even if the individual is in judicial custody, provided there is proper justification.
Preventive detention is permissible even when the detenu is in judicial custody, provided the authority satisfies the triple test of imminent release on bail and likelihood of repeated criminal activ....
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....
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.