Kerala High Court
Athira John V.J vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 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
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ATHIRA JOHN V.J
AGED 27 YEARS
W/O MANUKUMAR, NADUTHATTUVILA PUTHENVEETTIL,
PALAPPUR, KALLIYUR, VELAYINI P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAURAM,, PIN - 695522
BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
CIYA E.J.
RESPONDENT/S:
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,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695043
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PIN - 695033
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
..2..
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PP
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
..3..
JUDGMENT
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
The wife of the detenu is before us.
2. The detenu is involved in ten crimes. Six crimes were
considered for passing the order under the Kerala Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [hereinafter
referred to as, "KAA(P)A"] as follows;
Sl. Police Station Crime No. Sections
No.
1 Thiruvallam 1286/2018 U/s 341, 323, 324, 427,
506(ii) & 34 IPC
2 Thiruvallam 1660/2018 U/s 294(b), 341, 323, 324,
308 & 34 IPC
3 Thiruvallam 1344/2020 U/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 332,
225(B) & 379 IPC; Sec.3(1)
(4) of PDPP Act; Sec.3, 4 of
Explosive Substance Act &
Sec.27 of Arms Act.
4 Kovalam 1586/2021 U/s 143, 147, 148, 149,
294(b), 341, 324 & 435 IPC
5 Thiruvallam 433/2023 U/s 294(b), 341, 323, 324,
325, 308, 427 & 34 IPC
6 Nemom 1406/2023 U/s 341, 324, 307 & 34 IPC
3. The petitioner raised three contentions; firstly, regarding
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
..4..
the delay of three months and ten days in passing the
detention order, reckoning from the date of last
prejudicial activity. Secondly, the last crime will have to be
excluded as it is only related to law and order; and if that
is excluded, previous crime registered against the detenu
was one year ago; and therefore, no detention order can
be passed since the live link between the last prejudicial
activity and the date of passing the detention order has
been snapped. The third contention is in regard to the
confirmation order, stating that there was no application
of mind in imposing the maximum period of detention.
4. The last prejudicial activity was on 11.11.2023. The
detenu was arrested on 16.11.2023. He was released on
statutory bail on 14.02.2024. The sponsoring authority
submitted report on 18.12.2023. The detention order was
passed on 20.02.2023.
5. The first question is whether the delay resulted in
snapping of live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the date of passing the detention order. It is to be
noted that the detenu was in judicial custody till
14.02.2024. The sponsoring authority noted that if the
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
..5..
detenu is released on bail, there is likelihood of repeating
his activities and therefore, proceedings will have to be
initiated. We cannot ignore the stand of the sponsoring
authority as above. If the judicial custody is being
prolonged, there may not be any purpose for initiating
proceeding under the KAA(P)A. The sponsoring authority
was vigilant enough to note that in a crime, if a person,
who is ordered to be detained, is likely to get bail, they
can very well initiate action under the KAA(P)A. Normally,
the sponsoring authority need not wait till a person is
released from judicial custody to initiate proceedings
under the KAA(P)A. What court needs to consider is
whether the sponsoring authority was vigilant enough to
follow up that such a person is likely to be released from
judicial custody. In this case, we are satisfied that the
sponsoring authority was vigilant enough and that there
are justifiable reasons for any delay occasioned in passing
the detention order.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
last case will have to be excluded from consideration for
passing the detention order. It is submitted that there is a
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
..6..
gang rivalry and there is a connected case. The detenu
was brutally attacked and a case has been registered
against the de facto complainant in the last crime. We
note the nature of allegations against the detenu. Merely
for the reason that there is a connected case, it cannot be
said that a crime will have to be excluded from
consideration for passing the detention order. There are
allegations of overt act attributed against the detenu. In
such circumstances, we cannot say that this case has to
be excluded as it is only law and order. The question of
law and order would arise with reference to the pattern of
activity, not with reference to a single incident in which
the detenu was involved. If there is a continuous activity
of different nature and there is a sufficient reason for the
authority to suspect that he will likely to repeat such
offence and such an activity would amount to threat to the
society, it can easily be concluded that such person is a
menace and threat to the society. The gravity or impact of
one incident may not be sufficient if it is taken along with
other crimes and it can be concluded that the person
ordered to be detained is a threat to the society. His
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
..7..
activity is nothing, but would amount to vitiate public
order. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the
last incident will have to be taken along with other crimes
for passing the detention order.
7. According to the learned counsel, there was no
application of mind in imposing the maximum period of
detention. The learned counsel has not produced copy of
the confirmation order. Anyway, the gravity and nature of
the crime and the continuous involvement of the detenu in
crime would justify the imposition of maximum period of
detention. We find no reason to interfere with the
impugned detention order.
The WP(Crl) is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
WP(CRL.) NO. 510 OF 2024
..8..
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 510/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
DCTVM/14523/2023-S-13 DATED 20.02.2024
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.842/2023 OF THIRUVALLOM POLICE
STATION
