Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7190
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, S.MANU, JJ
SREEDHANYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 577/2024
M.H.HANI, P.M.JINI, T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR, NANCY MOL P.ANANDHU P.C.NEETHU.G.NADHCIYA E.J., ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA, ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11), ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
Delayed registration of a crime raises suspicion about the nature of the person's involvement, and this aspect should be considered by the detention authority while passing a detention order.
Headnote:
Preventive Detention - Detention Order - Sections 3, 5, 8 of the National Security Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who was subjected to a detention order under the National Security Act. The detenu was alleged to have been involved in a crime that occurred on 02.11.2023 in a Bar, but the case was registered only on 09.12.2023, and he was arrested on the same day. Thereafter, he was released on bail, and the detention order was passed on 31.01.2024.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that if a crime is reported very belatedly, no proceedings should be initiated based on such a crime, as the belated registration of the crime itself would raise suspicion about the nature of the person's involvement. The court also noted that the detention authority did not consider these aspects while passing the detention order.
Issues: Whether the detention order passed against the detenu under the National Security Act was justified, given the delayed registration of the alleged crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a matter where there is room for doubt due to the delayed reporting of the crime, the benefit should be given to the person against whom proceedings are recommended for detention.
Final Decision: The court set aside the detention order and ordered the release of the detenu, provided he is not otherwise required in any other case under the law.
Dated this the 20th day of June 2024 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu. Detenu already suffered a detention order. After earlier detention order, he is alleged to have involved in a crime. The incident in the crime occurred on 02.11.2023 in a Bar. However, the case was registered only on 09.12.2023 and he was arrested on the same day. Thereafter he was released on bail. The detention order was passed on 31.01.2024.
2. Taking note of the incident referred in the crime, we are of the view that if such a crime is reported very belatedly, no proceedings should be initiated based on such a crime. The belated registration of crime itself would show rooms for suspicion as to the nature of involvement of a person, who is ordered to be detained. It is not a matter where there was delay in apprehending a person, who alleged to have committed crime. It is a matter where the comission of offence itself reported belatedly. While passing detention order, there should be an application of mind as to the involvement of the person ordered to be detained in a crime, and on being satisfied that he has actively involved and he would be a threat to the society, the order of detention can be passed.
3. In a matter like this, when there is a room for doubt as crime itself was reported belatedly, benefit should be given to the person against whom proceedings are recommended for detention.
4. We are of the view that based on the solitary incident as above, there could not have been any proceedings under the preventive detention law. These aspects have not been considered by the detention authority. Therefore, we set aside the detention order and order to release the detenu forthwith, provided, he is not otherwise required in any other case under law.
This W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above.
