IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TH TUESDAY, THE 27 DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 7816 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

ANSAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, ALUNINNAVILA HOUSE, KARMOODU MULLAN COLONY, MANGALAPURAM DESOM, MEL THONAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695104 BY ADVS.

M.H.HANIS T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR NANCY MOL P.

NEETHU.G.NADH ANANDHU P.C.

RIA ELIZABETH T.J.

SAHAD M. HANIS RESPONDENT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME (SSA)

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033 4 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM - 682026 BY ADV. SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.05.2025, THE COURT ON 27.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

16.08.2023 passed against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 19.10.2023, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for a period of six months, from the date of detention. It is after the completion of the period of detention, the detenu has approached this Court with this writ petition.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, on 22.05.2023 seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.

3. Altogether 15 cases in which the detenu got involved were considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P1 order of detention. Out of the said 15 cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.590/2023 of Mangalapuram Police Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC. and the detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case.

4. We heard Sri. M.H.Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas , the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the order of detention, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The learned counsel further urged that the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority without taking note of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity and the conditions imposed on him at the time of granting bail itself were sufficient to deter the detenue from involving in criminal activities. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority. The learned counsel further submitted that after the initial proposal forwarded by the District Police Chief, an additional report was also forwarded, but the copy of the said additional report was not served on the detenu. According to the counsel, the non-service of the said additional report will certainly vitiate the impugned order.

6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that there is no delay in passing Ext.P1 detention order. He pointed out that the proposal for initiation of