Point of Law : Court cannot hold that a pre-arrest/pre-detention delay in executing detention order will prejudice detenu in any manner.

JUDGMENT :

C. Jayachandran, J.

Ext.P1 detention order issued under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P)A' for short) is under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Vineeth @ Kunji. Ext.P1 detention order was confirmed by the Government under Section 10(4) of the Act as per GO dated 14.07.2023, as per which, the detenu was put under preventive detention for a period of six months with effect from the date of detention, i.e., 06.04.2023. The Detaining Authority took into consideration five instances of anti-social activity to issue the impugned detention order, the details of which are narrated under the tabular statement shown here below :

2. Heard Sri. Ajeesh M. Ummer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents.

3. PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS:

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions to assail Ext.P1 detention order. The first is with respect to the delay of 7 days in executing the detention order, which was issued on 30.03.2023. The same was, however, executed only on 06.04.2023. An unreported Bench decision of this Court dated 17.11.2022, in Saleena vs. State of Kerala and others (W.P. (Crl) No.592/2022), was cited to circumvent the contention that the delay occurred on account of the necessity to obtain permission from the Court concerned to formally execute the detention order, since the detenu was undergoing judicial custody in connection with another crime. The second contention urged was that, since the detenu was already in judicial custody, there was no necessity to issue the impugned detention order, which aspect was not properly considered and weighed by the Detaining Authority, thus vitiating the impugned order. The settled legal position as regards the likelihood of being released on bail from judicial custody and likelihood of repeating a similar offence was not specifically considered by the Detaining Authority. All what is decipherable from the impugned order is an apprehension that the accused may apply for bail, since the final report is filed. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amritlal and others v. Union of India and others [(2001) 1 SCC 341 : 2001 (1) KHC 1349], a subtle distinction was pointed out between the likelihood to file bail application as against the likelihood to secure the bail. {***Note:-Ameena Begum vs. State of Telengana and Others [2023 SCC Online 1106]}. In this regard, another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat and another v. Union of India and others [1990 (1) SCC 746 : 1990 KHC 748], was also pressed into service. The third contention, the most important one according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is regarding the inordinate delay of more than three months in confirming Ext.P1 detention order by the Government under Section 10(4) of the KAA(P)A Act. The learned counsel would point out that, the detention order was issued 30.03.2023, executed on 06.04.2023 and that the Advisory Board recommended confirmation on 10.05.2023, whereas the Government took more than three