JASID A.S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, in regard to the challenge against the order preventing and detaining the detenu in this case under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.Liffy P.Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A.Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

(3.) In the instant case, brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: The petitioner is the brother of the detenu involved in this case (Sri.Sinar, aged 26 years, S/o.Sulaiman) who has been detained in terms of Ext.P-1 detention order dtd. 15/8/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent District Magistrate/District Collector, Ernakulam (authorized detaining authority) under Sec.3(1) of the above Act. According to the respondents, Ext.P-1 detention order has been forthwith communicated by the 2nd respondent to the 1 st respondent State Government along with all relevant records. Thereafter, Ext.P-1 detention order has been executed with the arrest and actual detention of the detenu on 17/8/2022 and thereafter, he has been detained in the Central Prison, Kannur since then, in connection with this case. Ext.P-1 detention order has been subsequently approved by the 1st respondent State Government as per order dtd. 27/8/2022. The 1st respondent State Government had, later, referred the matter for the opinion of the 4th respondent statutory Advisory Board on 31/8/2022. The 4th respondent statutory Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu, has given their report to the State Government, on 14/10/2022, recommending that there are sufficient grounds for preventive detention of the detenu in terms of Ext.P-1 order. Later, the 1st respondent State Government has issued G.O.(Rt.) No. 2965/2022/HOME dtd. 26/10/2022 confirming Ext.P-1 detention order. Altogether 4 criminal cases have been taken into account for determining the issue as to whether the detenu would satisfy the requirements of "Known Rowdy" as per Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) of the above Act. Going by the details of the said crimes given in Ext.P-1 detention order, there are no serious disputes that the detenu would broadly satisfy the definitional parameters of "Known Rowdy" as per Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) of the above Act.