GIRIJA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the mother of the detenu who stands detained pursuant to proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Ext.P1 is the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Act, ordering the detent ion of the detenu, proceeding on the basis that the alleged detenu was a known rowdy. However, the detenu was not detained on the basis of Ext.P1 order as such. Ext.P2 is the order dated 11.11.2010 issued by the same District Magistrate who issued Ext.P1. Therein, he has referred to, inter alia, the letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Police to the effect that the alleged detenu and his associates have committed the offence in Crime No.717 of 2010 of Thiruvalla Police Station under Section 294(b), 394 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code on 25.10.2010. The case was that the detenu and his associates entered into the works site where the complainant works with his JCB Excavator and demanded Rs.10,000/= as goonda fee, threatened, manhandled brutally and inflicted serious injuries to him and robbed Rs.2,500/= and broken the wind shield of the JCB Excavator from his pocket. The case is under investigation. It is further stated, inter alia, that he was reported arrested on 02.11.2010 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. It is stated that it is informed that he has moved to get bail from the court and it has been reported that he will involve in antisocial and violent activities affecting public order, if he is released on bail. Thereafter, the Magistrate issued Ext.P2 addendum to Ext.P1 order. It is feeling aggrieved by the detention pursuant to the same that the petitioner is before us.

(2.) WE heard Shri S. Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Shri P. Ravindra Babu, learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) AS far as the question of the detenu being in custody at the time of passing of Ext.P2 order, he would submit that the fact that the detenu was in custody, and that he had moved for bail, was very much present in the mind of the detaining authority. He would submit that the decision of a Bench of this Court in R.P. No.20 of 2010 in W.P.(Crl).No.446 of 2009 for the proposition that when an order of detention is followed by an Addendum, in law, there is only one order of detention and approval is to be given for the original order of detention. He also submits that Ext.P2 reflects application of mind by the detaining authority to the relevant aspects, namely the existence of a new circumstance, and that what is stated in the report of the sponsoring authority, even if he was in error, as regards the question of the detenu absconding, it will not have any fatal effect on the order of detention.