AMBIKA B Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition(Crl) is instituted seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of Ajeesh, the son of the petitioner who is detained in terms of Ext.P1 order issued under Sec. 3 of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (the Act), and set him at liberty. The petitioner seeks the relief aforesaid on the premise that the detention of her son is illegal.

(2.) Ext.P1 order proceeds on the premise that the detenu, who is a 'known rowdy' in terms of the provisions of the Act, needs to be detained in order to prevent him from committing further anti-social activities. It is alleged in Ext.P1 order that the detenu has indulged in various prejudicial activities, the last of which is his involvement in Crime No.360 of 2022 of Nagarur Police Station. The occurrence which is the subject matter of the said crime took place on 30/7/2022. The detenu was arrested in the case on 31/7/2022 and he was released on bail on 24/8/2022. It is seen that the need to detain the detenu under the Act was brought to the notice of the sponsoring authority by the Station House Officer, Nagarur on 6/9/2022. Promptly, the sponsoring authority recommended to the detaining authority to initiate proceedings against the detenu under the Act on 22/9/2022 itself. On the said recommendation, the detaining authority sought additional particulars from the sponsoring authority thrice, one on 29/10/2022, another on 16/11/2022 and another one on 4/1/2023. After receiving the additional particulars, the detention order was issued on 7/1/2023 and the detention was confirmed by the Government on 2/3/2023 for a period of six months from the date of detention.

(3.) Although several grounds have been raised in the writ petition to impugn the detention order, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged only four grounds. The first ground is that there is unreasonable and unexplained delay in passing the detention order, thereby throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction rendered by the detaining authority as to the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. In order to substantiate the said ground, the learned counsel has pointed out that there is a delay of 4 months and 14 days between the date of release of the detenu on bail in Crime No.360 of 2022 and the detention order. A detenu under the Act is entitled to be furnished the grounds of detention, specifying the instances of offences, with copies of the relevant documents, on the basis of which he is considered as a 'known rowdy' and also the materials relating to his activities, on the basis of which his detention has been found necessary in terms of Sec. 7(2) of the Act, so as to enable him to exercise his right to represent to the Government and before the Advisory Board against the detention. The second ground is that the requirement under Sec. 7(2) is mandatory and there is non-compliance of the said requirement, inasmuch as page Nos.65, 66, 67, 71, 133, 142, 144 and 180 of the compilation of documents served on the detenu were not legible and the detenu was consequently, deprived of his right to prefer effective representations to the Government and before the Advisory Board as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The third ground is that the detenu preferred a representation on 3/2/2023 to the Government and before the Advisory Board and the said representations were not considered before the confirmation of the order of detention. The last ground is that there is non-compliance of the mandatory procedural requirement provided for under Sec. 3(3) of the Act, inasmuch as the detaining authority has not reported the detention order to the Government and the Director General of Police, Kerala together with the supporting records which, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter.