Detention under KAA(P) Act valid despite procedural challenges; delay justified as detenu was in custody, and classification as 'known rowdy' supported by sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

An order of detention dated 12.11.2024 passed against one Abdul Mubashir under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity) is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 20.01.2025 and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of execution of the order.

2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, on 01.10.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, and for passing the order of detention the authority reckoned four cases in which the detenu got involved. The details of the cases considered by the detaining authority for classifying the detenu as a “known rowdy” are given below:-

3. We have heard Sri. M.H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated, as the same is passed without proper application of mind and disregarding the procedural safeguards envisaged under the KAA(P) Act. According to the counsel, there is unreasonable delay on the part of the District of Police Chief, Palakkad in forwarding the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act, and therefore, the said delay will snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. The learned counsel further urged that, the jurisdictional authority disregarded the fact that already proceedings have been initiated against the detenu under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNS S ), 2023, and the same would have been sufficient to prevent the detenu from involving in criminal activities. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the investigation in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is still under progress and mere registration of FIR alone is not sufficient to treat the said case as a qualified one to be reckoned for passing a detention order under the KAA(P) Act. It was pointed out from the side of the petitioner that the offences alleged in the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity are offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ) and as the said offences punishable under BNS are not specifically brought under the definition of ‘rowdy’ contained in Section 2(t) of the KAA(P) Act, the said case should not have been reckoned for passing the impugned order. The learned counsel further contended that there is a delay of 23 days in executing the detention order after the detenu’s release from jail in connection with the last prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, if the accused had been absconding after his release from jail, it was obligatory on the part of the executing authority to initiate proceedings under Section 6 of the KAA(P) Act, but the same is not seen done in this case.

5.