THANVEERA THASNI K.S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is wife of the detenu, namely, Muhasin C.A. He is involved in 7 crimes out of which 4 crimes were considered for passing the detention order. Following are the 4 crimes:

(2.) It is fairly admitted by the learned Government Pleader that the second crime cannot be reckoned for the purpose of passing detention order invoking Sec. 2p(iii) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 classifying the detenu as a known rowdy. Then, what is left is three crimes. The first crime was committed in the year 2019. The allegation against the detenu was that he had involved in conspiracy with other the accused. In third crime, the genesis of crime arise out of honey trap. The fourth crime is also based on Sec. 120-B IPC. There was a delay of 4 months and six days. It is explained in the impugned order that as per the investigation, there was a delay in arraying the detenu as an accused in the investigation. The second and fourth cases clearly establish that there was no overt act at the time of commission of the offence attributable to the detenu. The allegations in all these crimes would establish that the activities of the detenu would fall as vitiating the law and order and not the public order. While passing the detention order, the nature of offences committed and its impact on public order will have to be considered by the detention authority. It is not the crime and the offence for which a detenu has been accused that is decisive in passing the detention order, the nature of his involvement and its impact on the public order are the necessary elements to be reckoned while passing such detention order.

(3.) Considering the legal angle as above, we find that the detention authority have not applied its mind. The reason for the delay itself would show that the detenu was implicated in the criminal case only through investigation and there was no incident attributable to overt act on his part on the day it was committed. That be the case, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith provided his custody is not required otherwise under law.