RACHEL JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who has been ordered to be preventively detained as per the impugned Ext.P1 detention order.

(2.) The detenu was involved in several crimes including Sec. 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The detention order was passed on 21/10/2023. The last prejudicial activity was on 16/7/2023 and after that, the detenu was absconding and he was arrested on 9/10/2023. He had already undergone preventive detention as per an earlier detention order dtd. 9/12/2013 and was released on 17/12/2013 before completing the detention period. Thereafter, he was involved in another crime and hence, proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for short, "KAA(P)A"] were again initiated against him and the sponsoring authority submitted a report on 31/7/2021, which was rejected by the detaining authority due to the existence of live bail conditions. Even thereafter, the detenu again got involved in Crime No.511/2022; however, the proposal for detention submitted by the sponsoring authority on 23/9/2022 was again rejected by the detaining authority due to loss of live link. When the detenu again got involved in Crime No.737/2023, Ext.P1 detention order was issued as instructed by the District Police Chief, Kollam.

(3.) The impugned Ext.P1 detention order was passed against the detenu considering five cases out of nine proposed by the sponsoring authority. The last prejudicial activity was on 16/7/2023 and the proposal was received by the detaining authority on 1/9/2023. The detaining authority sought for additional information and the sponsoring authority produced additional reports on 11/10/2023. Thereafter, Ext.P1 detention order was passed on 21/10/2023. It appears that there is more than three months' delay in passing the detention order from the date of last prejudicial activity. Though reasons have been stated for the delay in passing the detention order, they have not been satisfactorily explained. It is stated that since the detenu was absconding, it took time to produce the documents and evidence. If the detenu was absconding, the authority ought to have filed a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction in regard to the abscondence. No such steps appear to have been taken in this case by the detaining authority. Hence, the reason stated in the detention order that the delay occurred due to the abscondence of the detenu is not found to be justifiable.