Detention orders under the KAA(P) Act upheld due to ongoing criminal activities affecting public order despite delays in issuance.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [‘KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity]. The petitioner herein is the aunt of Hidayathullah, aged 35 years, S/o.Hussainar, Alungal Veedu, Veliyangodu, Palapetty, Perumpadappu [hereinafter referred to as ‘the detenu’]. The detenu was classified as ‘Known Rowdy” under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

2. The records would reveal that the detenu was involved in five crimes; the details of those crimes are as follows:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Reeha Khader submitted that the live link between the last prejudicial act and the detention order has snapped. The last prejudicial activity is Crime No.68/2025 of Perumpadappu Police Station and the detenu has been implicated as accused No.3 in the said case. The allegation in this case is that, on 21.01.2025 at about 1.30 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, and inflicted grievous hurt to the complainant. The allegation against the detenu is that he caused damage to a bicycle kept inside the house. The detenu was arrested in this case on 22.01.2025 and released on bail on 03.03.2025. The report of the sponsoring authority was submitted on 15.02.2025. The detaining authority, after considering the relevant materials and arriving at objective and subjective satisfaction, passed Ext.P1 order on 15.03.2025. The delay in passing the order has not been explained, asserts the learned counsel.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the offences alleged against the petitioner pertain to a private dispute between two individuals and do not adversely affect the public interest, peace, or the tranquility of society as a whole. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at objective and subjective satisfaction.

5. Sri Anas K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the detenu is involved in five criminal cases, including offences punishable under Section 307 IPC, and that too against children and women, and was in judicial custody. There was every possibility that the detenu would indulge in anti-social activities in the near future. Ext.P1 detention order has been passed after proper application of mind and arriving at the objective and subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that there was a delay of more than one month between the last prejudicial act and the issuance of the impugned order, which was occasioned by the collection and scrutiny of relevant materials.

6. The first submission of the petitioner is that the live link has b