Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9943
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
LAILA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 594 2023
M.H.Hanis, P.M.Jinimol (K/1092/2004), T.N.Lekshmi Shankar (K/1181/2010), Anandhu P.C. (K/1254/2020), Krishna T.B. (K/2016/2020)
Detention orders remain valid despite procedural delays if the nature of the offences indicates a continued threat to society.
Headnote:
Detention - Criminal Law - KAA(P)A - Sections 10(4) - The court affirmed that delays in passing a detention order do not automatically sever the connection between the prejudicial activities and the order, especially when the nature of offences justifies detention.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged a detention order based on delayed issuance following the last prejudicial act by the petitioner, who had a history of serious offences demonstrating a threat to society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay did not break the 'livelink' as the delay was normal in bureaucratic processes, and the nature of the offences justified the detention.
Issues: Whether the significant delay in issuing the detention order resulted in severing the connection between the prejudicial activity and the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The mere delay in the issuance of a detention order does not automatically sever the connection with previous prejudicial activities unless such delay fundamentally impacts the justification for the order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This writ petition (criminal) was filed challenging a detention order. The main ground of challenge is regarding the considerable delay involved in passing the said detention order after the last prejudicial activity. It is appropriate to refer to the chronology of events in the cases registered against the petitioner which reads thus:
1. Last prejudicial activity :01/11/2022 2. Detenue was granted anticipatory bail :21/11/2022
3. SHO submitted report before sponsoring authority :20/12/2022
4. Report submitted by District Police Chief (Sponsoring authority) before detaining authority :30/12/2022
5. Date of detention order :01/02/2023
6. Detenue arrested pursuant to detention order :05/02/2023
7. Submission of proposal to Government :10/02/2023 8. Date of order of approval by Government :15/02/2023
9. Date of reference by Govt to Advisory board :20/02/2023
10. Representation of detenue to Advisory Board :25/02/2023
11. Detention order confirmed u/s 10(4)
Of KAA(P)A :25/03/2023
2. It is also appropriate to refer to the five cases in which the detenue was involved from 2018 to 2022
| Date | Crime No. | Offence |
| 21.04.2018 | 370/2018 | u/s 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 506(ii), |
| 25.04.2019 | 278/2019 | 34 IPC u/s 341,323,326,307,34 IPC |
| 25.04.2019 | 115/2019 | u/s 447, 294(b), 323, 326, 308, 506(ii), 34 IPC and Sec 27 Arms Act |
| 28.02.2022 | 186/2022 | u/s 451, 506,427, 393, 323, 324, 294(b), 34 IPC |
| 01.11.2022 | 1226/2022 u/s 294(b),323,324,354,506,308 IPC |
3. Admittedly, the detenue had undergone externment for a period of 6 months. The offences are also coming under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code. The nature of the offences would show that they are of such a nature giving reasonable apprehension that the detenue is a threat to the larger society. The detenue is now classified as a ‘known goonda'. The offences also include the offences under the Arms Act as well. Delay in passing the detention order was explained in this matter. Last prejudicial activity was on 1/11/2022. The Station House Officer, reported to the Sponsoring Authority on 20/12/2021. Detention order was passed on 1/2/2023. Mere delay itself will not snap the livelink between the prejudicial activity and the detention order. The Court will have to examine the nature of the offences committed and the procedures involved in passing the detention order. Normal administrative delay in processing the detention order cannot go to the benefit of the detenue unless the delay is of such a nature to hold that livelink has been snapped. We find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition (criminal) fails, and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE ms APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 594/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO. DCKLM/98/2023-M16 DATED 01/02/2023 Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30/12/2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO. 370/2018 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION DATED
21/04/2018 Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
278/2019 OF THE KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION DATED 25/04/2019 Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
115/2019 OF KANNANALLOOR POLICE STATION DATED 25/04/2019 Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
186/2022 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION DATED
01/03/2022 Exhibit P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1226/2022 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION
01/11/2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE DETENU ON 25/02/2023 BEFORE THE KAA(P)A BOARD Exhibit P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT CONFIRMING THE DETENTION DATED
25/03/2023 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. HOME-
SSA5/42/2023 DATED 28/03/2023 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
23/03/2021
