Kerala High Court
Liyo Lijo vs State Of Kerala on 21 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 MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 559 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LIYO LIJO
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O LIJO GEORGE, MANAKUZHY HOUSE,KOCHUPURAKKAL
KADAVU, PANIELY, KOMBANADU, PANIELY, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 683546
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
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682030
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KURUPPANPADY POLICE STATION KURUPPANPADY., PIN -
683545
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ERNAKULAM RURAL., PIN - 682039
5 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAA(P)A, SREENIVAS, PADAM
ROAD,VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,ELAMAKKARA., PIN - 682026
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR., PIN - 670004
W.P.(Crl.) No. 559 OF 2024 2
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
BY SRI. K.A. ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No. 559 OF 2024 3
JUDGMENT
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, namely,
Linto. Linto suffered a detention order under the Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. Thereafter,
he involved in two crimes which are as follows:-
1) Crime No. 1993/2023 under Sections 395, 120B,
414, 212 of Thrissur East Police Station.
read with 34 IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act,
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act,
2015.
2. He is in judicial custody since 07.10.2023. He has
not moved for bail in the last crime. The detention
authority passed the detention order on 19.01.2024. The last
crime was committed on 6.10.2023. There was a delay of 3
months and 10 days in passing the detention order. The
detention order was executed only on 30.01.2024. There was a
delay of 11 days in executing the detention order. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu
is continue to be in judicial custody and there is no need
to invoke the provisions of Preventive Detention Law to pass
a detention order. According to him, the detention order
was passed without application of mind. It is submitted that
when the detenu had not moved for bail application, the
detention authority ought to have apply its mind whether the
detenu is likely to be released on bail or not, taking note
of the nature of offence committed. It is further submitted
that the detention order was passed after three months
reckoning from the date of last prejudicial activity.
Further, it is argued that there occurred 11 days delay in
executing the detention order.
3. It is to be noted that the detenu is involved in
heinous crime including offence under Section 302 of the
IPC. This offence has been committed after serving 1st
detention order. The sponsoring authority took time to
submit report for the reason that last two crimes were
registered by different police stations. One offence was
committed in Thrissur District and the other offence was
committed within the Ernakulam District. The delay is also
explained. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason
to hold that the delay has occasioned, snapping lively
between the last prejudicial activity and date of detention
order.
4. The objectives of penal law and objectives of
judicial law are having distinct elements. Merely for the
reason that a person is continue to be in judicial custody,
it does not mean that the Authority shall refrain from
passing a detention order. The Authority cannot wait till a
person moves a Court for release on his bail. Whether he
moves or not, the Authority only need to consider whether he
continues to pose threat to the society or not. Considering
the nature of the offence, if it is satisfied that he is a
menace to the society, the Authority can very well pass such
an order irrespective of the fact that he continues to be in
judicial custody.
5. The next argument is that there is a delay of 11
days in executing the order. The delay is explained. As
permission has to be sought from different courts, after
obtaining permission, the same was executed. We, therefore,
find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned
order.
This writ petition stands dismissed.
SD/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
sd/-
S. MANU, JUDGE
DCS/24.06.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 559/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCEKM/12974/2023-M7 DATED 19.01.2024
ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS SERVED ON THE
DETENU IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION
