Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 283 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANEESH M.V, AGED 34 YEARS, SON OF VISHWAMBARAN,
MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O., KAIPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN – 686 601
BY ADVS.
IRFAN ZIRAJ
P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001
2
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN – 686 002
3
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN – 686 002
4
ADVISORY BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE
KERALA ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT 2007
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
"SREENIVAS", VIVEKANANDA ROAD, PADAM ROAD,
ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI, PIN – 682 724
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
SRI. K.A. ANAS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:24086
W.P.(Crl.)No.283 of 2024
..2..
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to invoke provisions under the KAAPA Act must be based on the nature of the allegations and the proclivity of the detenu to repeat offenses.
Headnote:
KAAPA ACT - DETENTION - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION
Fact of the Case:
The detenu was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA Act) based on six criminal cases against him, including offenses such as assault, cruelty to animals, sexual assault, and threats. The petitioner, the detenu's brother, challenged the detention order, arguing that the nature of the allegations did not warrant detention under KAAPA.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the detenu, coupled with his history of criminal activity, established that he was a threat to public order. The court noted that even though the detenu was acquitted in one of the cases, this did not negate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that he was a threat to society.
Issues: Whether the allegations against the detenu and his history of criminal activity justified his detention under the KAAPA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to invoke provisions under the KAAPA Act must be based on the nature of the allegations and the proclivity of the detenu to repeat offenses. In this case, the court found that the allegations against the detenu, coupled with his history of criminal activity, established that he was a threat to public order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the detention order passed under the KAAPA Act.
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. This writ petition was filed by the brother of the detenu.
The detenu is detained invoking provisions under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short “KAAPA Act”). The following six cases were taken for consideration to pass order under the KAAPA Act.
Sl.
No .
Police Station Crime No.
Offences 1 Ettumanoor Police Station 549/2017 U/s. 323, 324, 341, 326, 307 r/w 34 of IPC 2 Ettumanoor Police Station 137/2018 U/s.452, 429, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
3 Ettumanoor Police Station 07/2023 U/s. 342, 354, 354 (A) (1)(1), 376(2)(f) of IPC 4 Ettumanoor Police Station 09/2023 U/S. 294(b), 506(ii), 332 of IPC Gandhinagar Police 1363/2023 U/S.294(b), 506(i) of ..3.. Station IPC Gandhinagar Police Station 1525/2023 U/S.308 of IPC
2. According to the petitioner, in the first crime, the detenu was acquitted. The second crime is in the nature of law and order and the third crime arose out of family dispute.
It is further argued that in the fourth and fifth crimes, the offences registered against the detenu are only under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that going by the nature of allegations against the detenu, it is clear that absolutely no case is made out to pass a detention order under the KAAPA Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of allegations ought to have been examined in each case before arriving at the subjective satisfaction to invoke provisions under the KAAPA Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Luciya Francis v. State of Kerala [2023 (6) KLT 337].
3. We perused the allegations. Merely for the reason that the detenu was acquitted in a crime that does not mean that the proceedings under the KAAPA Act will become ..4.. redundant. The allegations and proclivity to repeat an offence are basis for the subjective satisfaction. Coupled with other crimes committed, the detaining authority arrived at a conclusion that the detenu is a threat to the public order. It may be true that one of the offences is within the family circle.
That offence when taken up with other offences would clearly establish that the detenu is a threat to the society.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. The writ petition fails, and accordingly, dismissed.
