Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30652
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, S.MANU, JJ
SURTHI KRISHANMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 332/2024
M.H.HANIS, P.M.JINIMOL, T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR, ANANDHU P.C., NANCY MOL P., NEETHU.G.NADH, CIYA E.J., ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11), ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28), K.A. ANAS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Unreasonable delay in passing a detention order under preventive laws can snap the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order, rendering the order invalid.
Headnote:
Preventive Detention - Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Sections 3, 5, 8
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Sabari P.R., who has been detained by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Palakkad dated 23.02.2024. This is the second detention order. After the first detention order, he was involved in three crimes. The last two crimes were registered on 6.09.2023 and on 07.09.2023. He was in judicial custody till he was released on bail on 20.10.2023. The Sponsoring Authority submitted its report on 31.10.2023, and an additional report was submitted on 11.01.2024. The detaining authority passed the order of detention on 23.02.2024, with a delay of five months and eight days from the last prejudicial activity.
Finding of the Court:
The court is not satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay in passing the detention order. The live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order is snapped due to the unreasonable delay.
Issues: Whether the delay in passing the detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 is justified?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in passing the detention order is unreasonable and frustrates the very purpose of preventive laws.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and ordered the release of the detenu, provided his custody is not otherwise required in any case under law.
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely Sabari P.R, aged 21 years, an ordinary resident of Palakkad District. He has been detained by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Palakkad dated 23.02.2024. This is the second detention order. After the first detention order, he involved in three crimes. The last two crimes were registered on 6.09.2023 and on 07.09.2023. He was in judicial custody till he was released on bail on 20.10.2023. The Sponsoring Authority submitted its report on 31.10.2023. An additional report was submitted on 11.01.2024. The detaining authority passed the order of detention on 23.02.2024 and there is a delay of five months and eight days from the last prejudicial activity till passing the detention order.
2. Though an attempt was made to explain the delay in the impugned order, we are not satisfied with the ..4.. explanation offered for the delay. Merely for the reason that an additional report was obtained only in the month of January, that cannot be an excuse for having an undue delay in passing the detention order. It seems that the Sponsoring Authority initiated proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 only after the release of the detenu based on the orders of the Magistrate Court granting him bail in the last prejudicial activity. There is no bar under law in initiating proceedings under the preventive laws immediately after the commission of offence by a person.
3. In the light of the past crimes committed and in the light of the fact that the detenu had already suffered a detention order, there would not have been any valid reason for the Sponsoring Authority as well as the Detaining Authority for the delay in initiating proceedings under the KAAPA Act against the detenu. Unreasonable delay would frustrate the very purpose of preventive laws. According to us, the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order is snapped. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and order release of the detenu forthwith, provided, if his custody is not otherwise required in any case under law.
This W.P.Crl. is disposed of as above.
