Kerala High Court
Anandhavalli vs State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 534 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANANDHAVALLI, AGED 77 YEARS
W/O THULASEEDHARAN, VISAKH HOUSE, NEAR
PERUMKUZHI NALUMUKKU, PERUMKUZHI DESAM,AROOR
VILLAGE,CHIRAYANKEEZHU THALUK,THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 695305
BY ADV AJEESH M UMMER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN
- 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695043
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION CHIRAYINKEEZHU.,
PIN - 695304
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THIRUVANATHAPURAM RURAL., PIN - 695033
5 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAA(P)A, SREENIVAS, PADAM
ROAD,VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA., PIN -
682026
WP(Crl) No.534/2024
..2..
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR., PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.06.2024, THE COURT ON 01.07.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl) No.534/2024
..3..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
The petitioner, the mother of the detenu, has approached
this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of detention issued under
the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007
[hereinafter referred to as, "the KAA(P)A"].
2. Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on
29.02.2024 considering Crime No.1321/2023 of Parippally
Police Station registered against the detenu for committing
offence under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on 20.10.2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority
while the detenu was in judicial custody pursuant to his last
prejudicial activity on 20.10.2023. He was arrested on
20.10.2023 and has been in judicial custody since then. It is
pointed out that there was a delay of four months and nine
days in passing the detention order from the date of last
prejudicial activity. The learned counsel further pointed out
..4..
that though the order of detention was passed on 29.02.2024,
it was executed only on 07.03.2024 and hence, there was a
delay of seven days in executing the order as well, however,
no reason was stated in the detention order for the delay in
passing as well as executing the detention order.
4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that an
earlier detention order was passed against the detenu in 2023
and he had undergone the entire period of detention and even
after release, he continued to be involved in similar offences,
especially offences under the NDPS Act. According to the
learned Government Pleader, the delay in passing as well as
executing the detention order has been properly explained in
the detention order.
5. On a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that
no satisfactory or proper reasons have been stated for the
delay in passing as well as executing the detention order.
Admittedly, the detenu was in judicial custody at the time of
passing the detention order. If proper reasons are not stated
in the detention order for the delay in passing the same, the
order itself will be vitiated and the live link between the date
of last prejudicial activity and the date of passing the
..5..
detention order will stand snapped or broken. The authorities
could have proceeded against the detenu within a reasonable
period. The detenu was arrested on the date of the last
prejudicial activity itself, i.e., on 20.10.2023, and the
detention order was passed on 29.02.2024 when he was in
judicial custody pursuant to the last prejudicial activity. The
detention order was executed on 07.03.2024. Hence, it is
clear that there is a delay of four months and nine days in
passing the detention order as well as a delay of seven days in
executing the same. The apex court, in Manju Nahar v. Union
of India & others [(1999) 4 SC 116] held thus:
"This object can be achieved if the order is immediately
executed. If, however, the authorities or those who are
responsible for the execution of the order, sleep over
the order and do not execute the order against the
person against whom it has been issued, it would
reflect upon the satisfaction of the detaining authority
and would also be exhibitive of the fact that the
immediate necessity of passing that order was wholly
artificial or non-existent."
6. It is true that merely because there was delay in
passing the detention order, it does not vitiate detention, but
if no proper reasons are stated in the order, that will lead to
vitiation of detention. Here, in this case, no proper reasons
have been stated in the detention order for the delay in
..6..
passing as well as executing the order. Hence, we are inclined
to conclude that the detention is vitiated on account of the
unexplained delay in executing the order of detention.
In the result, the WP(Crl) is allowed. The impugned
detention order is set aside and the concerned prison
authorities are directed to release the detenu forthwith, if his
further detention is not otherwise required under law.
SD/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
..7..
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 534/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCTVM/462/2024-S13 DATED 29.02.2024
ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS SERVED ON THE
DETENU IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION
