IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act can be justified based on the potential threat to public order posed by an individual's repeated criminal activities, irrespective of their current custody status.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The petitioner is the mother of Sri. Nibras K.N., (the detenu). This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the said order and to set him at liberty.

2. Short facts:

2.1 By a report dated 17.01.2024, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kannur to the authorized officer under Section 3(1) of the Act. In the said report, it was mentioned that the detenu was continuously engaging in anti-social activities and to prevent him from doing so, necessary orders were required to be passed under KAAPA to classify the detenu as a “known rowdy”. In the proposal, details of 5 cases were provided, out of which, in four cases the final report had already been laid and in one case the investigation was pending.

2.2 Details of the cases in which the detenu was involved are as under:

(i) Crime No. 890 of 2019 of the Valapattanam Police Station, registered under Sections 341 and 332 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 146, and 147 of the Railway Act, 1989. The detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case. The specific allegation is that on 25.9.2019 at 6.25 p.m., the detenu attacked the Point Man working in the Valapattanam Police Station while he was discharging his official duty when he cautioned the detenu for taking a selfie while standing on the top of the railway bogie. The final report has been laid in this case.

(ii) Crime No. 87 of 2021 of the Valapattanam Police Station, registered under Section 392 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The detenu is arrayed as the 2nd accused. The allegation is that he along with the 1st accused snatched the gold chain weighing 2.25 sovereigns from the body of the informant, a lady. The investigation has been completed and final report has been laid.

(iii) Crime No. 120 of 2021 of the Edakkad Police Station, registered inter alia under Sections 392, 120B, 468, 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The detenu is arrayed as the 3rd accused. The allegation is that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 snatched a gold chain weighing 16 sovereigns from a lady and the detenu herein facilitated the commission of the crime by handing over his bike. The investigation has been completed and the final report has been laid.

(iv) Crime No. 432 of 2023 of the Valapattanam Police Station, registered under Section 22 (B) r/w. Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The detenu is the sole accused in the said crime. The allegation is that 1.1 gms of MDMA was seized from the possession of the detenu by the police on 9.5.2023 at 10.45 p.m. The final report has been laid in this case.

(v) The last prejudicial act was committed by the detenu on 10.12.2023 which led to the registration of Crime No. 1559 of 2023 of the Kannur Town Police Station, registered inter alia under Section 392 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The allegation is that while the complainant, a lady was sitting by the beach, the detenu snatched her gold chain and fled from the spot in a scooter. The investigation has not been completed.

3. Sri. Abdul Raoof, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

3.1 The order was passed by the detaining authority without proper application of mind. In none of these cases, the detenu had any direct involvement. It is without evaluating the above fact that proceedings under KAAPA have been initiated against the detenu.

3.2 The allegations levelled against the detenu would not amount to disruption of public order and will only lead to violation of law and order. The ordinary law of the land was enough to prevent the detenu from committing prejudicial activities.

3.3 There is a long and unexplained time lapse from the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention. This would snap the live link as no plausible explanation has been offered for the delay.

3.4 The detenu w