Back
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS
Umesan P. V. , S/O. Appu P. V. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary To Government Of Kerala (Home Department), Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayers in the afore captioned W.P.(Crl.), seeking for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus and writ of certiorari, in regard to the challenge made against the order, preventively detaining the detenu in this case, are as follows:
(ii) declare that the detention of the detenu (Balachandran P.V.) invoking 3(1) of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 on the basis of Ext.P11 order by the 2nd respondent is illegal;
(iii) direct the 4th respondent to release the detenu (Balachandran P.V.);
(iv) exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ petition and the detenu further undertakes that he is ready and willing to produce English Translation of Malayalam documents as and when required;
(v) award cost to the petitioner;
(vi) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Advocate, instructed by Sri.Satheesan Alakkadan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A.
Sec.354 of IPC, dealing with assault or criminal force to a woman with intend to outrage her modesty, etc..
Section 2(p) of Act reads as “known rowdy” means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within previous seven years as calculated from date of order imposing any restriction or detention un....
Detenu will satisfy definitional parameters of “known goonda” as per Section 2(o) read with Section 2(j) of Act.
It is well settled, preventive detention is a harsher remedy, whereby the life and liberty of a person is at stake even without a formal trial to adjudicate his guilt.
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.
The court upheld the detention order under the KAAP Act, affirming that prior classification as a 'known rowdy' and subsequent criminal activity justified continued detention.
Excise officers should be treated at par with police officers for purpose of attracting bar against admissibility of confession as in Section 25 of Evidence Act.
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.
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
