NIMMY MARSHAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT . P1 order of preventive detention under the Kerala Anti -social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, "KAAPA", for short, is under challenge. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that out of the six cases considered by the detaining authority in the detention order, only five were actually counted and considered, and according to him, the sixth case, which is the last incident, could not have been considered at all. This he says to show that there was no live link, which could be established if the last prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu could not be sustained, since the other activities were beyond a period of two years from the attribute made in the sixth case. The argument advanced is that the first information statement in the sixth case, which is crime No. 367 of 2014 of Valiyathura Police Station, read along with the scene mahazar and other materials leading to the final report in that case are wholly insufficient to count it as a case because those materials are not sufficient to even disclose any offence punishable in law. It is further argued that the detaining authority, going by the contents of Ext. P1 order, is shown to have considered different materials, including the first information reports, statements of witnesses, investigation reports, final reports, rowdy history sheet, terms of bail, etc., however that, in spite of such statements in the detention order, all those materials have not been given to the detenu along with the detention order and that such failure of procedure infracts Article 22 of the Constitution of India and has prejudiced the interest of the detenu.

(3.) THE detention order shows that on 17.04.2013, the petitioner was brought under the cover of an order under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "Code", for short, and he had executed a bond. Assuming that the said bond was for a period of one year, which is the maximum permissible period under Section 107 of the Code, and the sixth, i.e., the last prejudicial activity, is on 21.03.2014, that is to say, before the end of one year, the fact of the matter remains that the detention order was issued only on 27.06.2014 after the period for which he could have been put under the cover of the bond executed on 17.04.2013 in satisfaction of the direction under Section 107 of the Code. No requirement was shown at any point of time thereafter to cover the person under a further order under Section 107 of the Code though the detention order is issued also on the premise that during the period of the bond, he was found indulging in illegal activity, which led to the registration of crime No. 367 of 2014 of the Valiyathura Police Station.