ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS
Binu Babu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayers in the afore-captioned Writ Petition (Criminal), seeking for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, in relation to the challenge against the impugned order imposed on the detenu concerned, under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), are as follows:-
“i) call for the records leading to Exts.P1 quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;
ii) issue a writ of habeas corpos commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenue, Bibin Babu, aged 24 years, s/o Babu Jacob, Cheriyapallikunnel House, Athirampuzha P.O. Kottayam, Pin-686 562, the brother 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 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 petitio
Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik vs. Union Of India & Ors [1992 (1) SCC 1]
Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 746 : (AIR 1990 SC 1196)
Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur and others (2012) 7 SCC 181 : (AIR 2012 SC 2002)
Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and another (2006) 5 SCC 676 : (2006 AIR SCW 4648)
Union Of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad [AIR 2019 SC 3428]
Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad [AIR (2019) SC 3428]
Veeramani v. State of T.N. (1994) 2 SCC 337 : (1995 AIR SCW 1730)
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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the detaining authority fails to supply legible copies of relied-upon documents, preventing an effective representation, or fails to record subjective s....
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of the likelihood of release and necessity for detention; vague assertions are insufficient.
Failure to provide legible copies of relied-upon documents violates the constitutional right to make an effective representation. Additionally, a detention order is invalid if the authority fails to ....
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.