Back
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. S. SUDHA
MEGHA OSHIN W/O ANOOP V. A. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Criminal), seeking for the writs of certiorari and Habeas Corpus are as follows:
(ii) Issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenu viz. Anoop VA @ Pokkan Anoop, Aged 32 years S/o Aravindakshan, Vayalupadam House, Athani Bhagam, Kizhakkepram Kara, Kottuvally Village, North Paravoor, Ernakulam the husband of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Kannur before this 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. Ajeesh Ummer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu, who has been ordered to be preventively detained, as per the impugned Ext.P1 detention order dated 14.04.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent D
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.
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....
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
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....
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.
Detenu will satisfy definitional parameters of “known goonda” as per Section 2(o) read with Section 2(j) of Act.
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....
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.
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
