LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. Detention order has been passed invoking the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short 'KAA(P)A'). Though the following 11 crimes were proposed by the sponsoring authority, the detention authority considered only 10 crimes:

(2.) The detenu has been characterised as a 'known rowdy' under Sec. 2(p)(iii) read with Sec. 2(t) of KAA(P)A. As we perused the order, we see that one crime was NDPS crime. NDPS crime cannot be invoked under Sec. 2(t). Rest of the cases are offences under the Indian Penal Code. The last prejudicial activity was on 16/10/2023. However, even before the last prejudicial activity, the sponsoring authority had submitted its report on 13/10/2023. The detention order was passed on 13/11/2023. Going by the nature of the offences except two offences, all are bailable offences.

(3.) It is seen that the detenu had raised a complaint against the police and one of the non bailable offences was charged against him after he had filed such a complaint. Taking note of the overt act of the detenu, we find that it cannot be said he would be a threat to the society and his action would vitiate public order. It is not the registration of the crime but the allegation in such crime that is decisive to classify a person as known rowdy or known goonda. On a perusal of all the allegations set out in the impugned order, it clearly indicates that he is not a threat to the society and his actions would not qualify to vitiate public order though it may affect law and order. The detention authority is bound to apply its mind to distinguish between law and order and public order with reference to the nature of offences committed by the person concerned. In this case, absolutely there is no application of mind. Hence the impugned order is to be set aside. The detenu is set at liberty forthwith if he is not otherwise required under law.