ANUPAMA S.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The identical petitioner seeks release of her husband and his brother, in the respective writ petitions, from preventive detention. The detenues have been detained under separate orders by reason of the criminal activities indulged in by them. We dispose of the writ petitions by this common judgment, since the contentions raised against the detention order are almost identical.

(2.) Sri.Hanis M.H., learned Counsel appearing in W.P.(Crl.) No.516 of 2022 is concerned with the detention of the petitioner's husband, who was taken into custody on 23/2/2022. It is argued that there are no documents to evidence compliance of sub-sec. (2) of S.7 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act [for brevity, 'KAA(P)A']. The contention is that there is no information in writing, under acknowledgment, of the right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against the detention. The last prejudicial activity was on 20/10/2021 and there is a delay of more than four months in passing the detention order. It is further argued that the detention order, immediately on its making, was not supplied to the Government, which as per S.3(3) has to be done 'forthwith'. The final order was passed on 15/5/2022 with gross delay. There is no final report filed in the last crime alleged against the detenue and hence it cannot be said that there is any finding in an investigation or enquiry by a competent Police Officer to bring him under S.2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P)A. The Detaining Authority has not applied its mind or considered Ext.P3 bail order; the conditions in which have been scrupulously complied with by the detenue. It is alleged that there is no supply of legible copies of the documents relating to the last crime, nor has the proceedings under S.107 Cr.P.C, initiated against the detenue, communicated to the Detaining Authority.

(3.) Sri.C.Rajendaran, learned Counsel appearing in W.P.(Crl.) No.531/2022 is concerned with the preventive detention of the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The two grounds raised against the subject detention are also with respect to there being no 'forthwith' transmission of the order of detention to the Government and the S.107 proceedings under the Cr.P.C having not been considered.