Back
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS
Shahul Hameed, S/o. Ismail – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home and Vigilance Department, Government Secretariat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for issuance of Writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, in relation to the challenge against the detention under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act” for short) are as follows :
ii. issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, Shabeek @ Shafeek @ Bava, aged 38 years, S/o. Shahul Hameed, Thirunalvelikaran House, Puliparakunnu Desom, Kodakara Village, Thrissur, PIN, the son of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Kannur before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. and
iii. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Criminal).”
2. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein is the father
Point of Law : Court are constrained to overrule the contention of the counsel for petitioner that, live link between the last prejudicial activity and purpose of detention has been snapped in this c....
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....
Even if Court concedes that necessary action for contemplating for preventive detention have been taken by sponsoring agency.
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....
If there is inordinate and unexplained delay in passing detention order, then same is liable for interdiction in judicial proceedings.
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.
The court established that excessive delays in preventive detention orders and in the consideration of representations violate constitutional rights, necessitating strict compliance with procedural s....
The court affirmed that previous crimes may be considered in detention orders under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act, with permissible delays explained adequately by authorities.
Time consumed by the detaining authority for seeking additional particulars in the case on hand cannot be said to be reasonable, justifying the delay.
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
