PUSHPARANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition (Crl.) is filed challenging Ext.P1 order of detention as well as Ext.P4 order of confirmation passed against the son of the petitioner, Santhosh, under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAA(P) Act).

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 7 crimes have been taken into account for the purpose of categorising the detenue as a 'known rowdy' as also for passing an order of detention against him. It is contended that the last prejudicial activity referred to is Crime No.325/2023 of the Kumily Police Station, wherein, the date of commission of offence was on 15.4.2023. It is stated that final report has been submitted on 8.5.2023 and the matter is pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Peermade. The offences alleged are under Sections 341, 294(b) and 323 IPC. It is contended that the last crime is one sought to be foisted against the detenue only to artificially create a live link for the purpose of passing an illegal order of detention against him.

(3.) It is contended that all the crimes alleged against the detenue disclose only the commission of offences involving law and order and that in the nature of offences, no violation referable to any anti-social activity is noticed or alleged against the detenue. Further, it is contended that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay in passing the order of detention since the last prejudicial activity alleged against the detenue was on 15.4.2023 and that he was arrested and released on station bail on same day itself. It is submitted that the detention order was passed only on 6.7.2023 and there is absolutely no reason stated for the said delay. A decision of this Court dated 29.5.2023 in W.P.(Crl.)No.277/2023 is relied on in support of this contention. Thirdly, it is contended that there is nothing to show that the copy of the detention order along with the entire documents evidencing the grounds for detention had been forwarded forthwith to the Government and the Director General of Police as provided under Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in Jasheela T.M. v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 617]. Further, it is submitted that the order of confirmation of the detention does not consider the question as to the period for which the detenue is to be continued under detention and no reason whatsoever is stated for passing a detention order for the maximum period of detention.