SUSI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the pendency of security proceedings against a detenu under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure a relevant circumstance to which mind of the detaining authority must be applied before ordering preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA')

(2.) Fundamental facts are not disputed. The Petitioner concededly falls within the definition of known rowdy in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chavara submitted Ext.P-4 report dated 19-5-2010 to the third Respondent, the Superintendent of Police suggesting the invocation of the KAAPA against the alleged detenu, Jojo, S/o. John. The third Respondent, the Superintendent of Police on receipt of Ext.P-4 submitted Ext.P-3 report dated 28-5-2010 under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA to the second Respondent, i.e., the District Magistrate, Kollam. The District Magistrate, Kollam on receipt of Ext.P-3 report dated 28-5-2010 proceeded to pass Ext.P-1 order of preventive detention dated 11-6-2010. The second Respondent also passed Ext.P-2 grounds of detention dated 11-6-2010. The detenu who is the son of the Petitioner herein was accordingly taken into custody and detained with effect from 18-10-2010. The order of detention was approved by the Government under Section 3(3) of KAAPA. Later, the order was confirmed by the Government under Section 10(4) of the KAAPA. The detenu will have to remain in custody till 17-4-2010 as per the order passed under Section 10(4).

(3.) It will be apposite straightway to note that five cases are relied on by the authorities to categorise the detenu as a known rowdy. They are: