Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Safiya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(Crl.) No. 688 of 2025
Decided on : 25-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
KERALA ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT : S.15(1)(b), S.2(p)(iii), S.3(1)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.307
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.126
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA : S.115(2), S.118(1), S.126(2), S.189(2), S.190, S.191(2), S.191(3), S.296(b), S.324(5), S.333, S.351(2), S.74
Headnote
(B) Public Order vs Law and Order - The distinction lies in the degree of impact on society - Court found that the detenu’s activities affected public order due to the nature of crimes involved. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges a detention order under the KAA(P) Act for her nephew involved in multiple serious crimes, asserting that the last act was not connected to public order. The detenu was detained after a pattern of anti-social behavior.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the detaining authority had applied its mind and satisfactorily explained the delay, affirming the detention order due to ongoing criminal activities affecting public order.
Issues: The court addressed whether the live link between the last act and detention order was broken and if the detenu's actions affected public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay did not sever the link to the detention order, and the detenu's history justified preventive detention under the KAA(P) Act.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SMT.K.REEHA KHADER, SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU, SMT.UMMUL FADLA T., SMT.HASANATH P.
For the Respondent: ADV.ANAS K A
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to detention order under kaa(p) act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of detenu's criminal activities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding live link and public interest. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's assessment of delay and public order. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. distinction between law and order and public order. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. court's reasoning on subjective satisfaction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. final ruling on the writ petition. (Para 15) |
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 2nd 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:
| N o Sl. . | Crime No. | Police Station | Crime Date | Offences Involved under various sections | Present Status of the case |
| 1 | 35/2020 | Perumpadappu | 08.02.2020 | 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 353, 506(i) r/w 149 IPC | Pending trial |
| 2 | 42/2020 | Perumpadappu | 14.02.2020 | 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 109, 118(a), 120B, 201, 212 r/w 149 IPC | Pending trial |
| 3 | 28/2021 | Perumpadappu | 13.02.2021 | 341, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC | Pending trial |
| 4 | 530/202 4 | Perumpadappu | 21.06.2024 | 452, 341, 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 IPC | Pending trial |
| 5 | 68/2025 | Perumpadappu | 21.01.2025 | 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 333, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2), 296(b), 324(5) and 190 BNS | Under investigation |
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
