Preventive detention is justified under the Act when prior offenses establish a clear risk of anti-social activities, reinforcing the need for discretion by detention authorities.

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The prayers in the afore captioned W.P.(Crl.), seeking for Habeas Corpus and for certiorari, etc., are as follows:

“i) Issue a Writ of Habeas corpus directing the 4th respondent to produce the body of ‘Mr.Sarath @ Siva, the detenue and release him.

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari and thereby call for the record in connection with Exhibit-P1 detention order as confirmed by the 1st respondent by Exhibit P2 order and set aside the same.

And iii) Grant such other reliefs that this Honorable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri.Deepak Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu involved in this case. The detenu, Mr.Sarath @ Siva, aged 28 years, has been detained under Sec.3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred for short as ‘KAAPA’). Pursuant to the report dated 23.03.2022 of the sponsoring agency (3rd respondent-District Police Chief), the 2nd respondent-District Magistrate, who is the authorised detention authority, has issued Ext.P1 detention order dated 08.04.2022, ordering preventive detention of the detenu under Sec.3(1) of the KAAPA. The impugned Ext.P1 detention order has been executed by the arrest and actual detention of the detenu on 08.04.2022. Thereafter, Ext.P1 detention order has been duly approved by the competent authority of the 1st respondent-State Government under Sec.3(3) of the KAAPA, on 21.04.2022. It is the specific case of the respondents that the grounds of detention and the relevant materials thereto, etc., have been duly served on the detenu on 08.04.2022, as required under Sec.7(2) of the KAAPA. Further that, at that time, the detenu has been duly informed about his right to consult a lawyer of his choice as well as the right to submit representations before the Advisory Board and the State Government, etc. The 1st respondent-State Government had referred to the recommendation/report of the Advisory Board, constituted as per the abovesaid Act, on 06.05.2022, in the matter of the detention of the detenu. The Statutory Advisory Board, headed by a former Judge of this Court, has heard the detenu on 23.05.2022 and thereafter, the Advisory Board has submitted their report to the 1st respondent-State Government, in the matter, on 30.05.2022, with the recommendation that there is sufficient cause for detaining the detenu, in terms of Ext.P1, so as to enable the Government to confirm the detention order. Based on the said recommendations and report of the Advisory Board, the competent authority of the 1st respondent-State Government in the Home Department, has confirmed Ext.P1 detention order on 06.06.2022.

4. The last prejudicial activity, allegedly committed by the detenu, viz., the date of commission of the last offence, in this case is on 13.03.2022. So, the time period between the last prejudicial activity and Ext.P1 detention order dated 08.04.2022 is 26 days, i.e., period from 13.03.2022 to 08.04.2022.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case are as follows. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, we would record each of the separate contentions raised by the petitioner and the reply thereto, furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent, and our findings on each of such contentions.

6. Six cases have been specifically taken into account by the detention authority for the purpose of consideration and issuance of the impugned detention order. The details of the six cases, as given in the detention order and other documents have been delineated in para No.6