Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, Ziyad Rahman A.A., JJ.
Anju P.Anilkumar - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home And Vigilance Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(CRL.) NO. 688 OF 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 2(p), (t), 6, 7(2), 13(2)(i), 10(4) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 201, 225B, 294(b), 283, 323, 328, 332, 341, 395, 427,506(ii), 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 27 & 12(b) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 66(I) & 192(A) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82,83,84,85 and 86 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 (5) - Habeas Corpus – Detention order - Known Rowdy - Involved in more than one offence - Petition challenging Ext.P1 order and for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding respondents to produce body of detenue and to set him at liberty – Materials would indicate that he was involved in more than one offence after first detention - Para 17.
Finding of the Court :
Materials would indicate that he was involved in more than one offence after first detention - Court do not find any justifiable reason to allow any of reliefs sought by petitioner in this Writ Petition - Materials placed before court would indicate that all statutory requirements contemplated under KAA(P)A have been complied with, and no irregularity or illegality warranting any interference in proceedings is revealed - Petitioner was repeatedly getting involved in offences which come within categories mentioned in 2(p) and 2(t) of KAA(P)A - Authorities concerned had properly assessed materials placed before them and arrived at an objective and subjective satisfaction as to necessity of ordering detention, and orders in this regard were passed in due compliance with statutory stipulations in this regard.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenue, Sri.Achu Santhosh, aged 31 years. He is now under preventive detention as per the Exhibit P1 order issued by the 2nd respondent/District Magistrate, under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KAA(P)A’). The 2nd respondent issued the aforesaid order on 30.06.2022 directing the detention of the petitioner by treating him as a ‘Known Rowdy’ as defined under section 2(p) read with section 2(t) of the KAA(P)A. Based on the aforesaid order, the detenue was arrested on 17.07.2022. This Writ Petition is submitted in such circumstances challenging Ext.P1 order and for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenue Sri. Achu Santhosh, and to set him at liberty.
2. Heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The facts which led to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:
Acting upon the report submitted by the 3rd respondent/District Police Chief, Kottayam, the 2nd respondent/District Magistrate, as per order bearing No.DCKTM/5978/2021/HI dated 30.06.2022, ordered the detention of the detenue under the provisions of KAA(P)A. The aforesaid detention was made taking note of the criminal record of the detenue which consists of 12 cases, the details of which are specifically described in paragraph 2 of the detention order dated 30.06.2022, in the manner as follows:
(Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 34 IPC)
| Date of commission of the offence | 14.09.2015 |
| Final report submitted on | 07.10.2015 |
| Court | Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor |
| Case Number | CC 1739/15 |
| Complainant | Rahul Raj |
| Position of the Accused | 1st Accused |
(ii) Crime No. 143/2017, Ettumanoor Police Station
(Section 324 I.P.C.)
| Date of commission of the offence | 20.01.2017 |
| Final report submitted on | 28.02.2017 |
| Court | Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor. |
| Case Number | CC 1282/17 |
| Complainant | Rahul K.A. |
| Position of the Accused | Sole Accused |
(iii) Crime No. 184/2017, Ettumanoor Police Station
(Sections 20(b) (II)A of NDPS Act)
| Date of commission of the offence | 31.01.2017 |
| Final report submitted on | 05.02.2017 |
| Court | Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. |
| Case Number | CC 95/17 |
| Position of the Accused | 1st Accused |
(iv) Crime No. 1908/2017, Ettumanoor Police Station
(Sections 294(b), 332, 506(i) IPC)
| Date of commission of the offence | 01.11.2017 |
| Court | Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ettumanoor |
| Case Number | CC 348/18 |
| Complainant | Santhosh Kumar |
| Position of the Accused | Sole Accused |
(v) Crime No. 2028/2017, Hillpalace Police Station
| Sections | 307, 332, 34 IPC & 20(b) (II)B, 25 of NDPS Act |
| Date of commission of the offence | 29.11.2017 |
| Final report submitted on | 21.07.2018 |
| Court | District & Sessions Court, Ernakulam |
| Case Number | S.C No. 722/19 |
| Complainant | P.S. Shiju, Police Inspector, Hillpalace Police Station |
| Position of the Accused | 2nd Accused |
(vi) Crime Number 1321/2018 Kuruvilangadu Police Station
(Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 201, 225B, 294(b), 283, 323, 328, 332, 341, 395, 427,506(ii), R/w 149 of IPC, Sections 27 & 12(b) of Arms Act, Section 177 r/w Sections 66(I) & 192(A) of Motor Vehicles Act)
| Date of commission of the offence | 26.11.2018 |
| Final report submitted on | 18.09.2019 |
| Court | Additional District & Sessions Court, Pala. |
| Case Number | SC 195/20 |
| Complainant | Benny P.A., Excise Range Inspector, Kuruvilangadu |
| Position of the Accused | 2nd Accused |
(vii) Crime Number 7
As per Section 13(2)(i) of KAA(P)A, if detenue is found involved in one more offence which comes within description of section 2(p) of Act, after completion of first detention, a further order of det....
The court upheld the detention order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that procedural requirements were met and the detenu's rights were not violated despite minor document illegibility.
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....
Preventive detention orders can be validly issued against individuals in judicial custody if the authority demonstrates sufficient grounds to believe they pose a future threat of criminal activity.
Preventive detention under the KAA(P) Act is valid if the authority satisfies the triple test concerning the risks posed by a detainee's possible release on bail.
Statutory compliance is essential in preventive detention; mere allegations of delay and non-compliance with procedural safeguards do not automatically invalidate the order.
Important points:The Detaining Authority has not verified any documents to show that after Ext.P14 the detenu has been released from jail by any competent Court. If a release has been effected, neces....
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.
A detention order can be validly issued against a person in judicial custody if there is a belief of likelihood of bail release and potential continuation of prejudicial activities post-release, subj....
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
