Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62039
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
UMESAN P.V.
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 777 2022
M.SASINDRAN SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
Preventive detention under state law must adhere strictly to statutory definitions and timing restrictions to ensure legality and fairness.
Headnote:
Detention - Habeas Corpus - Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 - Sec 3(1), Sec 2(p), Sec 2(t) - The court found that the detention order lacked sufficient legal basis as some prior crimes were too old; the definitions of 'known-rowdy' were not properly met.
Fact of the Case:
This case concerns a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, regarding the detention of an individual suspected of anti-social activities. The petitioner argued that various prior offenses included in the detention order were outdated and not applicable to the definitions within the statute.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legitimacy of prior offenses cited for the detention order and whether the bail conditions were sufficiently considered by the detaining authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for invoking preventive detention, the criteria of being a 'known-rowdy' must strictly comply with the definitions and time frames set by the Act; thus, any reliance on outdated offenses renders the detention invalid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to insufficient grounds to sustain the detention order.
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayers in the afore captioned W.P.(Crl.), seeking for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus and writ of certiorari, in regard to the challenge made against the order, preventively detaining the detenu in this case, are as follows:
“i) set aside Ext.P12 order dated 27-07-2022 No.G.O.(Rt) No.2075/2022/Home issued by the 1st respondent;
ii) declare that the detention of the detenu (Balachandran P.V.) invoking 3(1) of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 on the basis of Ext.P11 order by the 2nd respondent is illegal;
iii) direct the 4th respondent to release the detenu (Balachandran P.V.);
iv) exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ petition and the detenu further undertakes that he is ready and willing to produce English Translation of Malayalam documents as and when required;
v) award cost to the petitioner;
vi) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Advocate, instructed by Sri.Satheesan Alakkadan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.
3. The brief of the relevant facts of this case is as follows:
The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu in this case, covered by the impugned detention order at Ext.P11. The 3rd respondent-District Police Chief, has submitted Ext.P10 report dated 06.04.2022 and additional report dated 04.05.2022, recommending to the 2nd respondent-District Collector/District Magistrate, who is the authorised detaining authority, that, in view of the aspects stated in these reports, it is a fit case for the 2nd respondent to issue orders under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act [KAAPA], 2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short], so as to preventively detain the detenu with a view to prevent him from further committing prejudicial anti-social activities, as understood in Sec.2(a) of the said Act. Pursuant to the said reports of the sponsoring authority, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P11 order dated 18.05.2022, ordering under Sec.3(1) of the Act that, the detenu shall be preventively detained, so as to prevent him from further committing prejudicial anti-social activities. Ext.P11 detention order dated 18.05.2022 was duly executed with the arrest of the detenu on 24.05.2022. Further that, the 2nd respondent has forthwith communicated Ext.P11 detention order and all the other relevant materials to the 1st respondent-State Government. The 1st respondent-State Government has issued order dated 02.06.2022, approving Ext.P11 detention order, in terms of Sec.3(3) of the Act, within the mandatory 12 days period, excluding public holidays. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-State Government has made the necessary request, along with the materials, to the statutory Advisory Board, seeking their opinion in the matter, as conceived in Sec.9 of the Act. The statutory Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu, has given their report on 13.07.2022, recommending to the Government, that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu, in terms of Ext.P11 order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-State Government has issued Ext.P12 G.O.(Rt) No.2075/2022/HOME, dated 27.07.2022, confirming Ext.P11 detention order.
4. In the instant case, the last crime, said to have been committed by the detenu, is in 2021 and the FIR in that regard was registered on 15.03.2022. The time gap between the registration of the last crime (15.03.2022), and Ext.P11 detention order (18.05.2022) is 65 days. The period between the date of Ext.P11 detention order (18.05.2022) and the execution of the detention order (24.05.2022), is seven days.
5. The last crime has been registered on 15.03.2022. He was arrested in that case on 18.03.2022 and was released on bail on 28.04.2022. The 4th respondent-sponsoring Author
