Kerala High Court
P. K. Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:54437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA,
1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
. K. KRISHNAN
P
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O APPA, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANNOTH, PULLUR VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671531
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
SMT.SREELAKSHMI SABU
SMT.ASHITHA RIA MERIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 TATE OF KERALA S REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE T CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671123 3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:54437 ARAKATTA, VIDYANAGAR-ULIYATHADKA ROAD, KUDLU, P KASARAGOD, PIN - 671124 4 HE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA T SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026 5 HE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL T CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004 Y ADVS. B PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL EARING H ON 23.07.2025, THE COURT ONTHE SAMEDAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:54437 JUDGMENT Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J. The petitioner herein is the father of Mr. Ratheesh P.V.@ManthiRatheesh (hereinafterreferredtoas"thedetenu"forthesakeofbrevity).Onthestrengthof Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent, invoking powers under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ("the KAA(P) Act" for brevity), a preventive detention order has been issued. 2. Ext.P4revealsthatproceedingsundertheKAA(P)Actwereinitiated against the detenu based on his involvement in five crimes registered at Ambalathara Police Station. The details of the said crimes are as follows: a) CrimeNo.187of2024registeredunderSections286,308r/w.Section34 of the IPC. b) CrimeNo.188of2024registeredunderSections324,506(1)r/w.Section 34 of the IPC. c) Crime No. 255 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 448, 427, 506(1) r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. d) Crime No. 706 of 2020 - registered underSections143,144,145,148, 153, 332 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP Act). WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:54437 e) Crime No. 157 of 2024 - registered under Sections 341, 323, 324read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Insofar as the first two crimes are concerned, investigation was pendingatthetimeofissuanceofthedetentionorder,whileintheremainingthree cases,thefinalreporthadalreadybeenfiledbeforethejurisdictionalcourt.Records reveal that the proposal for detention was submitted on 19.06.2024, theorderof detention was passed on 22.07.2024, and it was executed on 26.07.2024. 4. Ms. Sreelakshmi Sabu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the detention order was passed by the 2nd respondent without proper application of mind. It was contended that there was a long and unexplained time gap between the last prejudicial act and the issuance of the detentionorder.Itwasfurthercontendedthatthedetenuhadbeengrantedbailin thelastprejudicialactbythejurisdictionalMagistrateon19.07.2024,andtherefore, at the time of issuance of thedetentionorder,theDetainingAuthoritywaslegally boundtoconsiderwhethertheconditionsimposedbythelearnedMagistratewere sufficient to preventthedetenufromengaginginfurtherprejudicialactivities.The learned counsel also contended that the offences relied upon for the purpose of preventive detentionaremerelawandorderissuesanddonotrisetothelevelof affectingpublicorder,whichisaprerequisiteforinvokingpowersundertheKAA(P) Act. WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:54437 5. In response, Sri. Anas K.A., the learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P4 detention order is the fourthinaseriesofdetentionorders passed against the detenu. The first orderwasissuedon12.06.2007,pursuantto which the detenu underwent the period of detention. A secondorderfollowedon 05.12.2015, and a third order was issuedon02.11.2017,whichwassubsequently revokedbasedontheopinionoftheAdvisoryBoard.Itwasfurthersubmittedthat followinghisrelease,thedetenubecameinvolvedinfivenewcriminalcases,which necessitated the issuance of the present detention order. Regarding the grant of bail,thelearnedGovernmentPleaderpointedoutthatbailinthelastprejudicialact was granted on 22.07.2024, the same date on which the detention order was passed. Therefore, it cannotbesaidthatthedetainingauthorityfailedtoconsider the bail conditions while passing the order. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced and examined the records. 7. Thefirstcontentionraisedbythelearnedcounselisthatthelivelink would get snapped on account of thedelayinpassingtheorderofdetention.We find that thelastprejudicialactwascommittedbythedetenuon20.05.2024.The proposal was submitted on 19.06.2024, and the detention order was passed on 22.07.2024. As held by the Apex Court in T.A. Abdul Rahiman v. State of WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:54437 Kerala1,thequestionwhethertheprejudicialactivitiesofapersonnecessitatingto passanorderofdetentionisproximatetothetimewhentheorderismadeorthe live link betweentheprejudicialactivitiesandthepurposeofdetentionissnapped dependsonthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.Nohardandfastrulecanbe precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances, and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when thereisanundueandlongdelaybetweentheprejudicialactivitiesandthepassing of the detention order, the court has toscrutinizewhetherthedetainingauthority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned when called upon to answer. Thecourtalsohastoinvestigatewhetherthecausalconnectionhasbeenbrokenin thecircumstancesofeachcase.Inthefactsandcircumstances,weareoftheview that there is no undue delay in passing the order of detention. 8. The contention that the bail orderpassedbythejurisdictionalcourt was not considered by the Detaining Authority cannot be accepted. The learned public prosecutor has made available the court records to establish that the detention order waspassedonthesamedaythatbailwasgrantedtothedetenu. 1 [1990 SCC (Cri) 76] WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:54437 We are also not impressed with the contention advanced by the learned counsel that the prejudicial activities will not affect the public order. 9. In Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others2, the Apex Court, after referring to the earlier precedents including Dr.RamManoharLohiav.StateofBihar3 and ArunGhoshv.StateofWest Bengal4,held as follows: "65.Thus,fromthevariousdecisionsreferredtoabove,itisevident that there is a very thin line between the question of law and order situationandapublicordersituation,andsometimes,theactsofaperson relating to lawandordersituationcanturnintoaquestionofpublicorder situation. What is decisive for determining the connection of ground of detention with the maintenanceofpublicorder,theobjectofdetention,is notanintrinsicqualityoftheactbutratheritslatentpotentiality.Therefore, for determining whether the ground of detention is relevant for the purposes of public order or not, merely an objective test based on the intrinsicqualityofanactwouldnotbeasafeguide.Thepotentialityofthe act has to be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances, posterior and anterior for the offences under the Prohibition Act. 66. Just because four cases have been registered against the appellant detenu under the Prohibition Act, by itself, may not have any bearing on the maintenance ofpublicorder.Thedetenumaybepunished fortheoffenceswhichhavebeenregisteredagainsthim.Toputitinother words, if the detention is on the ground that the detenu is indulging in 2 [ (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1003] 3 [(1966) 1 SCR 709] 4 [(1970) 1 SCC 98] WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:54437 manufacture or transport or sale of liquor then that by itself would not become an activity prejudicial tothemaintenanceofpublicorderbecause the same can be effectively dealt with under the provisions of the Prohibition Act but if the liquor sold by thedetenuisdangeroustopublic health then under the Act, 1986, it becomes an activity prejudicialtothe maintenance of public order, therefore, it becomes necessary for the detainingauthoritytobesatisfiedonmaterialavailabletoitthattheliquor dealt with by the detenu is liquor which is dangerous to public health to attract the provisions of the 1986 Act and if the detaining authority is satisfied that such material exists either in the form of report of the ChemicalExaminerorotherwise,copyofsuchmaterialshouldalsobegiven to the detenu to afford him an opportunity to make an effective representation. 10. Thus, the true distinction between the areas of "public order" and "law and order" lies not in the nature orqualityoftheact,butinthedegreeand extent of itsreachuponsociety.Thedistinctionbetweentheconceptsof"lawand order"and"publicorder"isafineone,butthisdoesnotmeanthattherecanbeno overlapping. Acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. As far as the present case is concerned, the prejudicial activities of the detenu leading to public disorder, as revealed in the grounds of detention, consist of a consistent course of criminal conduct.Thisisthefourthinaseriesofdetentionorderspassedagainsthim.When viewed from the above perspective, it is not possible to say that the prejudicial activities attributed to the detenu were mere law and order issues. WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:54437 11. ThisCourtdoesnotsitinappealinproceedingsunderArticle226of theConstitutionofIndiaoverthedecisionstakenbythedetainingauthorityonthe basis of the materials placed before the detaining authority as to whether preventive detention isnecessaryorwarranted.Theshortareaofjurisdictionisto ascertain whether subjective satisfaction is entertained properly on the basis of materials placed before the detaining authority. Iftheentertainmentofthelatter subjective satisfaction is vitiated by mala fides orbytotalabsenceofmaterialsor by reference to and reliance on materials which cannot legally be taken note of, certainly thepowersofjudicialreviewvestedinthisCourtcanbeinvokedandthe order of detention on the basis of such alleged subjective satisfaction can be set aside. But, certainly, if there are materials, it is not open to this Court to sit in appealoverthesubjectivesatisfactionentertainedbythedetainingauthority.(See: Ibrahim Bachu Bafan and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another5). 12. Fromaperusaloftherecords,wearesatisfiedthatallthenecessary requirementsbeforepassinganorderunderSection3(1)ofKAA(P)Acthavebeen scrupulously complied with in this case. The competent authority passed the detentionorderafterthoroughlyverifyingallthematerialsplacedbythesponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite objective, as well as subjective 5 [AIR 1985 SC 697] WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:54437 satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot besaidthattheorderpassedunderSection3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in any manner. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner hasnotmade out any case for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE d/- S K.V. JAYAKUMAR, PS/23/7/25 JUDGE WP(CRL.) NO. 305 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:54437 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 305/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 RUE T COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKSGD/5454/2024/D1(3) DATED 22-07-2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRIMARY REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THEREPORT SUBMITTED BEFORETHE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (SSA)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.07.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPYOFORDER NO.DCKSGD/5454/2024/D1 (1) DATED 22-07-2024 BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR.