VIJAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges Ext.P1, the order of detention issued under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, hereinafter referred to as 'KAAPA', whereby, her son Madhu Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu', for short, is ordered to be detained under section 3 thereof.

(2.) Ext.P3 is the report made by the 4th respondent to the third respondent on 27.2.2012, informing that the detenu is an accused in Crime Nos.568/08, 572/08, 1453/09, 698/11 and 1861/12 of Kundara Police Station. It is stated that he is liable to be declared as a 'known rowdy' and detained under section 3 of KAAPA. On the basis of that report, the third respondent sponsoring authority submitted Ext.P2 report dated 31.12.2012 to the second respondent, the detaining authority. Based on Ext.P2, the second respondent issued Ext.P1 order of detention on 4.4.2013. By this order, the detenu has been classified as a 'known rowdy' and on that basis, he was ordered to be detained under section 3 of KAAPA. The order was executed on 16.4.2013 by arresting the detenu. This was confirmed by the government on 25.4.2012. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board which submitted its report on 6.6.2013, recommending the confirmation of the detention. Subsequently, the Government issued order dated 24.6.2013 confirming the detention of the detenu. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash Ext.P1 and to set the detenu at liberty.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that in Ext.P1 order, a report dated 15.3.2013 has been relied on by the detaining authority and that the same was not furnished to the detenu. He also contended that the last prejudicial activity relied on against the petitioner, which led to the registration of Cr.No.1861/12, occurred on 5.11.2012. According to him, the detention order passed on 4.4.2013 is delayed by about 5 months and that the order is liable to be declared illegal on the ground of delay alone. He also contended that in Cr.No.1861/12, this Court granted bail to the detenu by order dated 3.1.2013 and that this order was not taken into account by the detaining authority while issuing Ext.P1 order. It is also stated that subsequently, the detenu was acquitted in C.C.No.116/09 which arose out of Cr.No.572/08.