PONNAPPAN N.N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the father of a detenu, is before this Court challenging the detention and raising very many grounds against the same. The first objection is with respect to the order having not been passed in compliance with subSection (3) of Sec. 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAPA', for short). The date of arrest is 27.4.2018 and approval order of the Government is passed on 9.5.2018 by Ext.P2, which is beyond the 12 day period prescribed under Sec. 3(3). The second objection is with respect to the detaining authority having not entered into a subjective satisfaction of the need to keep the petitioner's son in detention. The last objection is on the delay caused in taking up the proceedings for preventive detention and the order passed, which is five months after the date on which the incident occurred on which the last crime was registered.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader points out that the order has been passed in compliance with sub-Section (3) of Sec. 3 of the KAAPA, especially taking into account the public holidays, which came within the period between the detention and the order of confirmation. The learned Government Pleader has taken us through the entire detention order to urge that a proper consideration was made by the detaining authority and it is on the satisfaction of the authority of an imminent necessity for preventive detention, the order was passed. On the question of delay, the learned Government Pleader submits, that there is an explanation in the detention order itself as available in para 23 of the order. It is also submitted that the petitioner's son is a known criminal and had been involved in various cases and was last so involved in a crime by reason of an incident that occurred on 26.10.2017. The detenu was a person, who was included in the rowdy sheet in Jan., 2017, specifically on 24.1.2017 which brings him under Sec. 2(p) of the KAAPA; as a 'known rowdy'. It is also submitted that on 31.1.2017, the jurisdictional Magistrate had initiated proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the petitioner had executed bond on 29.3.2017. After that the last crime on the basis of which the detention order was passed, has been committed. Hence, there can be no delay found, is the contention.

(3.) On the question of delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in 2013(1) KLT 447 [Jimesh Jose Vs. State of Kerala]2013(2) KLT 838 [Praseedha Shiju Vs. State of Kerala] and the learned Government Pleader relied on the decision in 2016 (2) KLT 838 [Rahila Nazeer Vs. State of Kerala]; all decisions of the Division Benches of this Court.