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.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

This is a writ petition instituted seeking, among others, a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the husband of the petitioner, Ashique, who is detained in terms of Ext.P1 order issued under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (the Act) and to set him at liberty.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. As required by us, the learned Government Pleader has also made available for our perusal, the files leading to the detention of the husband of the petitioner.

3. The relevant facts as borne out from the pleadings of the parties and the files are the following:

The detenu is a person who was involved in several cases and was detained under the Act on three earlier occasions. The term of his last detention was over on 19.04.2023. After the release of the detenu, on completion of the term of the last detention order, he got involved in Crime No.359 of 2023 of Vallikunnam Police Station registered on 14.06.2023 under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The detenu is the third accused in the said case. He was arrested in that case on 28.06.2023 and enlarged on bail later on 24.08.2023. In the meanwhile, in the light of the involvement of the detenu in the said crime, the District Police Chief made a proposal on 29.07.2023 for his detention again under the Act. Later, when the detenu obtained bail in Crime No.359 of 2023 on 24.08.2023, that fact was also brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the District Police Chief in terms of his report dated 25.09.2023. The proposal of the District Police Chief dated 29.07.2023 and the report dated 25.09.2023 were, however, not acted upon by the detaining authority. Whilst so, the detenu got himself involved in another case as well namely, Crime No.744 of 2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station registeredon 22.05.2024 under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC. The involvement of detenu in that case was also brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the District Police Chief in terms of a report dated 22.06.2024. Later, when the final report in Crime No.744 of 2024 was submitted, the said fact was also brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the District Police Chief in terms of another report dated 24.07.2024. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 order was issued on 06.09.2024 and the same was executed on 09.09.2024. The detention order proceeds on the premise that the detenu is a “known rowdy”. A “known rowdy” in terms of the provisions of the Act, is only a“rowdy” who satisfies the definition of “known rowdy” under the Act.

4. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay of 3 months and 17 days from the date of the last prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu and the date of the order of detention and that inasmuch as the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained in the order of detention, the same is vitiated on account of that reason. As noted, the last prejudicial activity of the detenu is his involvement in Crime No.744 of 2024. The said crime was one registered on 22.05.2024 and the involvement of the detenu in the said crime was reported to the detaining authority by the District Police Chief on 22.06.2024 itself on receiving information from his subordinate officer namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police who, in turn, received information from the concerned Station House Offic