PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has there been proper application of mind by the detaining authority When a detaining authority is not apprised of and is unaware of the fact that bail subject to conditions has been granted recently to a detenu and proceeds on the grossly erroneous premise that the Detenu is absconding, are those circumstances sufficient to invalidate the order of preventive detention These questions arise for determination before us.

(2.) The petitioner is the father of a detenu under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007 (hereinafter referred to as KAAPA). There were three cases registered against him. Though the incidents in those three cases occurred on 28/9/2005,16/12/2006 and 31/8/2008 and final reports had not been filed,, it was alleged that he was a known rowdy and his detention was necessary under Section 3 of the KAAPA. Proceedings commenced with Ext.PS report dated 10/9/2008 submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police examined the documents and issued Ext.P4 order dated 19/1/2008 directing the registration of an F.I.R under Section 3 of the KAAPA. Accordingly, the F.I.R ExtP3 was registered on 27/12/2008. Report dated 30/12/2008 was submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the District Collector.

(3.) It will be apposite straight away to note that on 30/12/2008, the date of that report, under Section 3(1), in two of the three cases final reports had not been filed and the cases were pending investigation, even though it is asserted that in the course of the incomplete investigation, satisfaction had been entertained by the police that the detenu had committed the offences alleged against him.