RAFIYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the detenu, who has been detained under the provisions of Sec. 3(1),(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 (for short "the KAAPA"), is before us with a prayer for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at large. The allegation against the detenu is that as per the report of the Police Chief (Rural), Ernakulam (2nd respondent herein) the detenu is a 'known goonda' as defined under the KAAPA and has been indulging in several crimes under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act') and that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the peaceful life of the public at large. The 2nd respondent (District Police Chief (Rural)) as the Sponsoring Authority, vide Ext.P1 report dated 28.03.2018 pointed out that there are altogether five cases against the detenu, and that he was convicted to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000.00 in one of the cases registered against him. The petitioner admits that Crime No.1925/2013 of Perumbavoor Police Station, which was charge sheeted against the detenu as S.C.No.446/2013 on the file of the Addl.Sessions Court-VI, Ernakulam, ended in conviction of the detenu under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. However, the detenu preferred an appeal and vide judgment at Ext.P2, the appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted after setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The other four crimes referred to in Ext.P1 are on the basis of the complaints registered by the Police.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Detaining Authority at Ext.P3 dated 15.04.2018, was confirmed by the Advisory Board, and approved by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P4 dated 02.05.2018 and Ext.P5 order dated 14.06.2018. The detenu has been directed to be detained, which according to the learned Counsel, is not sustainable for various grounds stated in the Writ Petition and on the grounds argued by the learned Counsel.

(3.) The first ground raised is that there was no subjective satisfaction and no proper and real consideration of the representation made by the detenu. It is also submitted that there is three months delay in making the order of detention and four days delay in dispatching the order of detention to the Government, which needs to be made forthwith as per the provisions in the Statute.