Kerala High Court
Sheeja Karthikeyan vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 742 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHEEJA KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 46 YEARS
W/O GOPAKUMAR, 14/07, THANDASSERY, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680003
4 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI ANAS K A
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2025,
THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
2
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
The above captioned writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. call for the records leading to Ext. P1 order and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
ii. issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenu viz. Gopakumar @ Gopu, aged 43 years, s/o Raveendran, Thazhekkadu House, Nayarangadi Desom, Kallur Village, Thrissur, the husband of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Kannur before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 detention order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Thrissur detaining Gopakumar @ Gopu, 43 years [for the sake of brevity, 'the detenu'] invoking the powers under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ['KAA(P) Act' for the sake of brevity]. The records would reveal that a proposal for initiating the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was submitted by the 3rd respondent on 07.04.2025. The detenu was classified as 'Known Rowdy" under Section 2p(iii) 2025:KER:54811 W.P(Crl) No.742/2025 3 of the KAA(P) Act on account of his involvement in four cases. Apart from those four cases, he was involved in four other cases which were reported prior to seven years of the detention order. The details of cases considered for the detention order are as follows:
1) Crime No.1322/2020 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for offence under Sections 341, 323, 326, 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending trial.
2) Crime No.994/2024 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for offence under Sections 294(b), 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of BNS, which is pending trial
3) Crime No.291/2025 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(2), 110, and 3(5) of BNS.
4) Crime No.294/2025 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for offence under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a), 140(1), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 310(2), 109(1), 190(1), 351 and 190 of BNS.
3. The last prejudicial activity is Crime No.294/2025 of Puthukkad Police Station in which the detenu has been implicated as accused No.1. The detenu was arrested on 01.03.2025, and he is in judicial custody. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at 2025:KER:54811 W.P(Crl) No.742/2025 4 objective and subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. Ext.P1 detention order was passed in a mechanical manner. The learned counsel would further submit that there is a delay of two months from the last prejudicial act and the passing of Ext.P1 detention order. The detenu was arrested in connection with the last prejudicial act on 01.03.2025, and he is in judicial custody. 5. The learned counsel would further submit that, in view of the two-month delay, the live link between the last prejudicial act and the detention order gets snapped. It is also contended that the offences allegedly involving the detenu do not adversely affect public order, as they pertain to private disputes between individuals. Furthermore, it is submitted that the sponsoring authority failed to consider whether an externment order under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act would have been sufficient to deter or prevent the detenu from indulging in anti-social activities. The non-consideration and the delay in consideration of Exts.P2 and P3 are yet another ground urged by the counsel for the writ petitioner. 6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay has been adequately explained in the impugned order itself. It was further submitted that the offences in which the detenu is involved are of a grave and serious nature, which would have an adverse effect on public order. In the last crime, the allegation is that the car driven by accused No.1 deliberately dashed 2025:KER:54811 W.P(Crl) No.742/2025 5 against a scooter and inflicted serious injuries to the de facto complainant and snatched her gold chain, mobile phone etc. The efficacy of the bail conditions were also considered by the detaining authority. He pointed out that steps were initiated for the cancellation of the bail. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned order was passed after scrupulously complying with the statutory formalities and arriving at a subjective and objective satisfaction by the detaining authority.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay of two months between the last prejudicial act and the detention order, thereby breaking the live link. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [(1989)4 SCC 741]. In this judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:
"10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus: The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be 2025:KER:54811 W.P(Crl) No.742/2025 6 precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority 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 and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case."
9. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The delay is satisfactorily explained as the time taken for the collection and scrutiny of the materials.
10. The learned counsel, placing reliance on Stenny Aleyamma Saju v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (3) KHC 517], submitted that the mere registration of the crime against the detenu, ipso facto, is insufficient to invoke Section 3 of the KAA(P) Act. We are not persuaded by the said contention. The detenu herein was arrayed as accused No.1 in the last prejudicial act. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The allegation is that the detenu drove 2025:KER:54811 W.P(Crl) No.742/2025 7 the car, which dashed against the scooter of the de facto complainant, and snatched her gold chain and mobile phone. The role of the detenu is very clear from the case records placed before the detaining authority and it was after arriving at the requisite satisfaction that the detention order was passed. 11. The next contention is regarding the non-consideration and the delay in the consideration of Exts. P2 and P3 representations dated 17.05.2025. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the confirmation order in this case, which shows that the representations submitted by the petitioner before the Advisory Board and the Government were considered without undue delay. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention also. 12. The next contention is that, Ext.P1 order is passed without proper application of mind. The records would reveal that a rowdy history sheet was opened against the detenu on 24.02.2017. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated, and the detenu executed a bond on 19.04.2024. Since the detenu was involved in various crimes and anti-social activities, a report was submitted under Section 129(e) of the BNSS Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Irinjalakuda.
13. The records would further reveal that the detaining authority considered the efficacy of the bail conditions and accordingly initiated bail 2025:KER:54811 W.P(Crl) No.742/2025 8 cancellation proceedings against the detenu. The detention order was passed with proper application of mind and arrived at objective and subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India [2025 (4) SCC 476]. In Joy Kitty's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that the detaining authority shall consider and record satisfaction about the efficacy of bail conditions already imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction before passing the detention order. 14. In the case on hand it has been stated in the detention order that the bail applications filed in Crime Nos. 291/2025 and 294/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, were rejected, and the detenu is attempting to obtain bail. The authority also considered that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he is most likely to indulge in anti-social activities. On going through Ext.P1 order, it is clear that the detaining authority has applied its mind as to the efficacy and sufficiency of the bail conditions and submitted a report for the cancellation of bail of the detenu
15. In Ibrahim Bachu Bafan and Another v. State of Gujarat & Others [1985(2) SCC 24], the Apex Court has held that it is not open for the Court to sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction entertained by the detaining authority, unless the satisfaction is vitiated by malafides or by total absence of 2025:KER:54811 W.P(Crl) No.742/2025 9 materials.
We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
10
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 742/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DCTSR-5369/2025-C5 DATED
03.05.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.05.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.05.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT