RAMSEENA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Sri. Sanooj, aged 28 years, who is the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of detention passed by the 2 respondent against the said Sanooj under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 2007 (for brevity 'KAA(P)(A) vide Ext.P1. The said order was passed based on the reports submitted by the 3 respondent on 20/10/2020 and pursuant to the said order dtd. 7/12/2020, the detenue was arrested on 10/12/2020. The order was issued by treating the detenue as a 'known goonda' as defined under Sec. 2(o) of the KAA(P)A. The detention was approved by the Advisory Board on 4/2/2021 and was confirmed by the Government as per Ext.P15 order. The details of the cases in respect of which Ext.P1 order of detention was passed are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions such as; some of the cases which formed the basis of his detention are under NDPS Act and the petitioner has already pleaded guilty in respect of the same. According to him, the mandate of declaring a person as a known goonda, as contemplated under Sec. 2(o) of the KAA(P)A is that the detenue must have been "found guilty" by a competent court or the authority at least once, for an offence within the meaning of the term of 'goonda' as defined under clause (j) of Sec. 2. In the cases under the NDPS Act, the accused pleaded guilty and there is no finding of guilt entered by a competant court on evidence led. The representations submitted by the petitioner were not considered by the Government while confirming Ext.P1 detention order. Even though the detenue requested for an opportunity of personal hearing while considering his case, the Advisory Board did not permit the same. There is a delay of 3 months and 19 days between the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention; hence the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention was broken. Crime 1525/2020 registered by Chathannoor Police Station; the last prejudicial activity, was in respect of an act allegedly committed by him on 21/8/2020 and the allegation therein is the possession of 1638 gm. of ganja for sale by the detenue and his associate. No recovery has been effected from the possession of the detenue in the said case and in the absence of such recovery, no proceedings under KAA(P)A can be initiated based on that crime. He relies on the proviso to Sec. 2(o) of the Act in support of his contention. The Advisory Board as well as the 1 respondent failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in the cases mentioned above, subject to the condition that he shall not get himself involved in similar offences during the bail period. This was sufficient deterrence and this aspect was not discussed by the authorities concerned either in the detention order.