The court upheld the preventive detention order, emphasizing the need for proper application of mind by authorities, asserting that a live link between last acts and order must be maintained despite some delay.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Jayakumar, J.

This Writ Petition is filed by the mother of Christopher, aged 30 years [‘the detenu’ for the sake of brevity] challenging Ext.P1 order passed under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [‘the KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity] dated 03.03.2025.

2. In Ext.P1 order, the detenu was classified as ‘Known-Rowdy’ under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. In order to classify him as Known-Rowdy, the sponsoring authority has reckoned six crimes. Out of these, the detaining authority has taken into consideration five cases involving grave offences. The details of the crimes are as follows:

1. Crime No.737/2023 of Kozhikode Kasaba Police Station, registered for offence under Section 392 of IPC.

2. Crime No.738/2023 of Kozhikode Kasaba Police Station, registered for offence under Section 395 of IPC.

3. Cime No.1017/2023 of Nadakkavu Police Station, registered for offences under Section 506 IPC and Section 3 (i) of PDPP Act, 1984.

4. Crime No.391/2024 of Kasaba Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 392 and 201 of IPC.

5. Crime No.491/2024 of Kannur Railway Police Station, registered for offence under Section 305 of BNS, 2023.

3. The last prejudicial act is Crime No. 491 of 2024. In that matter, the detenu has been arrayed as accused No. 1. He was arrested on 02.12.2024 and is in judicial custody. The charge sheet has also been filed in the said case. The allegation against the detenu is that, on 15.11.2024, while the complainant, Sunil Raj, and his wife were travelling in the Mangala Express from Kalyan, Maharashtra to Thrissur, he snatched their gold ornaments.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Sri. Adithya Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and in a mechanical manner. Placing reliance on the judgment in Stenny Eliamma Saju v. State of Kerala , [ 2017(3) KHC 517 ], the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has not arrived at the requisite satisfaction, before the invocation of the power under Section 3 of the KAA(P) Act.

5. It is further submitted that the live link between the last prejudicial act and the detention order has snapped in this case. The last prejudicial act was on 15.11.2024. The detenu was arrested in connection with the last prejudicial act on 02.12.2024. The detention order was passed on 03.03.2025. Thus, there is an unexplained delay of 108 days between the last prejudicial act and the passing of the detention order, which the detaining authority has failed to justify.

6. The learned counsel then pointed out that the detention order does not specify any compelling reasons for its issuance. He placed reliance on Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu , [ 2011(5) SCC 244 ]

7. It is further submitted that the mere involvement in some crimes is not sufficient to book the detenu as Known Rowdy or Known Goonda. The offences alleged against the detenu must be prejudicial to public order and not mere violation of law and order. The detention order was passed without proper application of mind and based on extraneous materials. In order to fortify this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana , [ 2023 KHC 6816 ].

Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor

8. Per contra, Sri. Anas K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the detenu is involved in several grave crimes affecting the public order. The sponsorship was on 13.01.2025. The additional reports were submitted on 20.0