JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021 Vinod Chandran, J.

Petitioner is concerned with the preventive detention of her husband as per Ext.P1 order passed under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities [Prevention] Act, 2007 [for brevity, 'KAAPA']. The grounds raised against the order are that there is no proper application of mind, that the detenu was arrayed in Crime No.885 of 2020 by reason of distortion of facts, the offences registered against the detenu are not so grievous as to order preventive detention, the contentions of the detenu in the representations were not considered, the Advisory Board has not replied to the representation and that the order passed is against the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

2. More importantly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the last prejudicial act alleged on the detenu is Crime No.885 of 2020, in which this Hon'ble Court has granted bail as per Ext.P9. The bail conditions are complied with and both the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority have endorsed reports of such compliance. There was hence no reason to detain the detenu under the provisions of KAAPA after his release on 17.11.2020 as per Ext.P9 and his continued good behaviour as also compliance of the conditions of bail.

3. Learned Government Pleader argues for sustaining the order. The grounds raised are untenable and the detenu is a person, who is continuously involved in serious crimes, which he indulged in even after once being absolved from proceedings under Section 15(1) of the KAAPA, on his specific undertaking of good behaviour.

4. We have seen Ext.P9 order and Ext.P5 recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority. The detenu was involved in five crimes, the first of which was registered in the year 2017 and the last, in 2020. The offences charged against the detenu in the respective crimes are as follows:

(i) Perumbavur Police Station: Crime No.1141/2017 under S.341,323,307,294(b),201 & 34 IPC.

(ii) Oonnukal Police Station: Crime No.544/2018 under S.341,323,324,394 & 34 IPC.

(iii) Kuruppampadi Police Station: Crime Nos.855/2018 under S.341,323,294(b),506 (II) & 34 IPC.

(iv) Kuruppampadi Police Station: Crime Nos.417/2019 under S.341,294(b),323,324,354 & 34 IPC.

(v) Kuruppampadi Police Station: Crime Nos.885/2020 under S.212,468,471,307,34 IPC, Sec.3(a) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 & S.27 of Arms Act.

5. The allegations in the aforesaid crimes reveals that the detenu has, along with other accused, continuously indulged in offences, which are serious in nature. The detenu has indulged in acts of threats, intimidation, assault and physical violence and has proved to be a social menace in the last three years, when there are registration of enough crimes against him to be treated as a 'known goonda'

under the KAAPA.

6. The Detaining Authority, on a reading of Ext.P1 order, has applied his mind to the recommendation of the Sponsoring Authority and the documents produced before him. It is trite that in preventive detention it is the subjective opinion of the Detaining Authority that leads to an order being passed, which is sufficiently justified from the reasons stated. The allegation of last FIR having been lodged by distortion of facts is not the ground that can be considered at this stage. It is also trite that the subjective satisfaction does not extend to finding the accused, in a case charged against him, to be guilty or innocent. There is no mandate on the Advisory Board to reply to the representation filed before them. The Advisory Board has affirmed the order of detention after considering the representation and such affirmation is not subjected to judicial review.

7. The ground forcefully submitted before Court is with respect to the bail conditions having been complied with. Ext.P9 order has the following conditions;

“(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months or till the filing of the fina