SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus to direct the production of his son, Shamnad, aged 22 years (hereinafter referred to as the detenu), who is being preventively detained in custody as per an order of detention dated 21/12/2009 (Ext.P1) passed by the second respondent under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti -Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the KAAPA).

(2.) THE detenu is admittedly involved in eleven cases. Nine of them have admittedly been charge sheeted after the completion of investigation. The 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Police, submitted Ext.P2 report dated 17/10/2009 to the second respondent, the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA. The second respondent, District Magistrate passed Ext.P1 order dated 21/12/2009. In execution of Ext.P1 order, the detenu was arrested on 20/03/2010. Ext.P3 information was furnished to the detenu. The order of detention was approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of the KAAPA vide Ext.P4 order dated 29/03/2010. We are informed that order confirming the detention for a period of six months from the date of detention has already been passed by the Government under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA.

(3.) GROUND No. i): Admittedly, report under Section 3(1) was received from the Superintendent of Police by the District Magistrate. That report is dated 17/10/2009. Order of detention Ext.P1 was passed on 21/12/2009. Arrest in execution of Ext.P1 order was admittedly effected only on 20/03/2010. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the gap of time between 21/12/2009 and 20/03/2010 - a period of three months is inordinate and unjustified. The nexus between the subjective satisfaction allegedly entertained by the detaining authority and the actual arrest must be held to be snapped because of the delay of three months in executing the order of detention. The Learned Counsel relies on precedents to contend that unless the order of detention is promptly executed, the same would vitiate the subjective satisfaction allegedly entertained by the detaining authority. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Soja Beegum v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government : 2009 (4) K.L.T. 550 and Mohanan K. v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2010 (1) KHC 557.