LAWS(KER)-2012-6-519

BEJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 18, 2012
BEJI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Henry Jose, the husband of the petitioner was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'. The order of detention was issued on 17.12.2011. The detenu was arrested on 21.12.2011. In exercise of the powers under S. 10(4) of the KAAPA, the Government confirmed the order of detention. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. It is not in dispute that the detenu was detained under the KAAPA on an earlier occasion, as per the order of detention dated 5.11.2009. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention is bad in law and therefore, the continued detention of the detenu is illegal. The counsel raised two points: (1) In Crime No. 1096/11 referred to in the order of detention, the detenu was in judicial custody at the time when the detention order was issued. Though the detaining authority mentioned in the order of detention that the detenu was in judicial custody on the date of issue of the order, it was further necessary for the detaining authority to satisfy as to whether there was any possibility for the detenu to get bail and if so, whether there was any likelihood of the detenu indulging in similar criminal activities; and (2) Three of the crimes mentioned in the order of detention were under investigation and no final report was filed by the Police in those cases. If so, sub-clause (iii) of clause (p) of S. 2 of KAAPA would not be attracted.

(2.) The points raised by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner are discussed below.

(3.) Point No. 1: The order of detention reveals that the detenu was involved in six crimes, of which three cases were pending trial and the other three cases were pending investigation. The detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu would again indulge in prejudicial activities which may adversely affect the public safety, if he is released from judicial custody. The order of detention further shows that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 12.12.2011. Still, the detaining authority came to the satisfaction that if the detenu were to be enlarged on bait, he would again indulge in similar anti-social activities.