SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

&

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1941

WP(Crl.)No.154 of 2019

PETITIONER:

SHAJITHA SUNEER,

AGED 34 YEARS

W/O. SUNEER, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AKALAD P.O,

CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 518

BY ADVS.

SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

SRI.VISHNU BABU

SRUTHY N. BHAT

RESPONDENTS:

1

STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO

GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

2

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR 680 003

3

DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,

THRISSUR CITY, THRISSUR 680 009

4

STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

VADAKKEKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT 679 562

5

SUPERINTENDENT,

CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR 680 010

BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

SRI. K.A ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

07.06.2019, THE COURT ON 11.06.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(Crl.)No.154 of 2019

2

[CR]

Advocates:
['VIPIN NARAYAN', '', 'SRI VISHNU BABU', 'SRUTHY N BHAT', 'ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION']

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Nagaresh, J.

Wife of a detenu who is accused in as many as 14

crimes since 2015, seeks to quash Ext.P1 detention order and

to produce the body and set the detenu at liberty, by issuance

of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

2.

The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent-District

Police Chief submitted Ext.P5 report dated 17.12.2018, based

on which her husband Suneer @ Noorudheen has been

detained as per Ext.P1 detention order dated 15.01.2019

issued under Section 3(i) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities

(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAPA', for short) . The order was

executed on 17.01.2019 and the grounds of detention was

served on the detenu. Ext.P1 order has been passed without

due and proper application of mind, contends the petitioner.

3.

Ext.P1 detention order would reveal that the

following are the 14 cases taken into account for treating the

detenu as 'Known Rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(ii)(iii)

of KAAPA:-

1. Crime No.707/2015 under Sections 341,

323 read with Section 34 IPC of Vadakkekkad

Police Station.

2. Crime No.828/2015 under Sections 341,

506(i), 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC of

Vadakkekkad Police Station.

3. Crime No.996/2014 under Sections 341,

323, 324, 326, 506(ii), 427 read with Section 34 IPC

of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

4. Crime No.93/2015 under Sections 341,

323, 324, 294(b) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

5. Crime No.1507/2015 under Sections

506(i), 308 IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

6. Crime No.924/2015 under Sections 452,

341, 323, 506(i) IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

7. Crime No.1587/2016 under Sections 341,

323, 324, 506(ii) IPC of Vadakkekkad Police

Station.

8. Crime No.52/2017 under Sections 376,

406, 420 IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

9. Crime No.753/2017 under Sections 323,

506(i) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

10. Crime No.754/2017 under Sections 451,

506(i) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

11. Crime No.377/2018 under Sections

354(A), 354(D) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

12. Crime No.605/2018 under Sections 341,

323, 324, 294(b) IPC of Chavakkad Police Station.

13. Crime No.962/2018 under Sections

294(b), 506(i) IPC of Kunnamkulam Police Station.

14. Crime No.923/2015 under Section 353

IPC of Vadakkekkad Police Station.

Among the aforestated, Crime No.923/2015 of Vadakkekkad

Police Station is one suo motu registered by the police.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Vipin

Narayan argued that an order under Section 3(i) of the KAAPA

is preventive in nature. The order of preventive detention

being subject only to subjective satisfaction of detaining

authority and not being based even on minimal appreciation of

evidence, thorough application of mind by the detaining

authority shall precede. Application of mind by the detaining

authority is a condicio sine quo non. However, it is the

non-application of mind which is writ large and protruding in

the detention order.

5.

To drive home the point, learned counsel for the

petitioner pointed out that Crime No.52/2017 of Chavakkad

Police Station was in respect of an incident occurred on

18.03.2016. This Court granted bail to the detenu in B.A.

No.693/2017 on 06.02.2017 with the following conditions:-

“(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on

his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the lower court

concerned.

(ii)

He shall appear before the investigating

officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every

first and third Saturdays for two months, or till the

final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(iii)

He shall not intimidate or attempt to

influence the witnesses, nor shall he get himself

involved in any other criminal case.

(iv)

He shall surrender his passport before the

lower court concerned or if he does not have one,

he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five

days of his release.

(v)

He shall not leave the State of Kerala

without the previous p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top