JOSEPH DAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions to restrain the respondents from executing an order of detention allegedly passed against him under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti -Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA').

(2.) THE petitioner asserts that an order of detention has been passed categorizing him as a 'known rowdy' falling within the ambit of the expression under Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. Three cases are allegedly relied upon to issue such order of detention against him under Section 3 of the KAAPA. The first crime relied on is the one registered, inter alia, under Section 308 IPC on the basis of Ext.P1 FIR i.e., Crime No. 289/06 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station in Kollam District. The second crime on which reliance is placed is the one registered as Crime No. 42/08 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station in Kollam District for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 read with Section 149 IPC. The third crime which is relied on by the respondents against the petitioner is Ext.P2 crime i.e., Crime No. 233/09 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station in Kollam District registered under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Final reports have been filed in these crimes. It is the submission of the petitioner that an order of detention has been passed and the said order of detention under Section 3 of the KAAPA is likely to be executed against him at any moment. According to the petitioner, such order of detention is not valid, legal and enforcible. He hence prays that the extraordinary constitutional powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked to issue appropriate directions to restrain the respondents from executing the said order under Section 3 of the KAAPA.

(3.) EXTS .P1 and P2 as also the FIR in the second case i.e., Crime No. 42/08 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station have been perused by us. There can be no doubt that these are cases falling within the sweep of Section 2(t) of the KAAPA. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the cases fall within the sweep of the offences covered by the expression 'rowdy' in Section 2(t) of the KAAPA, the petitioner cannot be reckoned as a known rowdy and no order of detention is liable to be passed against him. He contends that under the third proviso to Section 2(p) of the KAAPA, Ext.P1 crime cannot be taken into reckoning to include the petitioner as a known rowdy. So far as the second crime i.e., Crime No. 42/08 is concerned, the argument is that it was basically a traffic accident; no serious injuries were suffered by the victim and anticipatory bail had been granted by this Court to the petitioner. So far as the third case is concerned i.e., Ext.P2 Crime i.e., Crime No. 233/09, the argument is that the injuries are simple and that cannot be reckoned as relevant for the purpose of including the petitioner within the sweep of the expression 'known rowdy'.