CHEEKILODE PREMALATHA Vs. ABDURAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this Writ Petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is Ext.P1 order of detention dtd. 28/12/2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Thrissur, the 2nd respondent herein.

(2.) Brief facts: The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. A perusal of Ext.P1 detention order would reveal that on account of the involvement of the detenu in seven crimes registered within the territorial limits of Thrissur District, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Sec. 2(p)(iii) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter stated as 'KAA(P) Act ' for brevity) and an order of detention was issued on 30/3/2024. The said order was revoked on 3/6/2024 by the Government on the strength of the opinion of the Advisory Board. After the release of the detenu, he got involved in two crimes, i.e., Crime No. 513 of 2024 of the Peechi Police Station and Crime No. 802 of 2024 of the very same Police Station. The last prejudicial act was committed by the detenu on 18/9/2024. On the premise that the detenu was continuing as a "Known Rowdy ", a Report was submitted on 6/12/2024 by the 3rd respondent, District Police Chief, seeking initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act. At the time of submission of the report, the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 802 of 2024. After arriving at the requisite satisfaction, the detention order was issued on 28/12/2024, and the same was executed on 31/12/2024. On 9/1/2025, the Government granted approval, and the matter was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion on 17/1/2024. The report of the Advisory Board was received on 13/2/2025, wherein it is mentioned that there was sufficient cause for the continued detention of the detenu. On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the detention order was confirmed by the Government by order dtd. 17/2/2025.

(3.) Sri. Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised the following contentions before us: