Kerala High Court
Shamila Chakkaramakkal vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:61590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025/23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 975 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHAMILA CHAKKARAMAKKAL, AGED 26 YEARS
W/O. SADIQ, S/O. RASACK, KOLATHERI HOUSE, S.I.
PADI, VELIYANKODE, PONANNI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
BY ADV SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANHTPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
MALAPPURAM CIVIL STATION, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PONNANI POLICE STATION, PONNANI POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679584
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:61590
5 THE SUPERINDENDENT
HIGH SECURITY PRISON, VIYYUR VIYYUR POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:61590
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian J.
This writ petition has been directed against an order of
detention dated 05.05.2024 passed against one Sadiq, S/o. Rasack
under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife
of the detenu. The detention order stands confirmed by the
Government vide order dated 07.07.2025 and the detenu has been
ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of
detention.
2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal
was submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on
28.03.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the
KAA(P) Act before the jurisdictional authority. For the purpose of
initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a
'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. For
passing the order of detention the authority reckoned four cases in
which the detenu got involved. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1609/2024 of Ponnani Police Station alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 132, 121(1), 110, 296(b), 351 r/w
3(5) of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") and Section 3(2)
(e) of PDPP Act and 132 r/w 179 of MV Act.
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:61590
3. We have heard Sri.P.C. Muhammed Noushiq, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the impugned order is vitiated, as the same has been passed without
proper application of mind and in regard of the procedural safeguards
envisaged under the KAA(P) Act. According to the counsel, there is
inordinate delay in mooting the proposal by the sponsoring authority
and as well as in passing the impugned order by the competent
authority after the last prejudicial activity rendering the live link
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention
snapped. The learned counsel urged that, if the sponsoring authority
was having any bonafide apprehension regarding the repetition of
criminal activities by the detenu, the authority would have acted
swiftly in making the proposal for initiation of proceedings under
KAA(P) Act. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference on the
ground of delay and is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government
Pleader, asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in
submitting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after the
last prejudicial activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable
while passing a detention order, especially when it is the duty of the
authority to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:61590
passing such an order. Moreover, a reasonable time would be
necessary for collecting the details of the cases in which the detenu is
involved, and minimal delay in mooting the proposal and passing the
order is quite natural and hence justifiable. According to the learned
Government Pleader, the detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order
after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction, and no interference is warranted.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced
and have perused the records.
7. The records show that the detenu was classified as a
"known rowdy", considering his recurrent involvement in nine cases.
While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay
that occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and in passing
the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3(1) of
KAA(P) Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as
fundamental rights of an individual. So such an order could not be
passed in a casual manner instead it can only be passed on credible
materials after arriving at the requisite objective and subjective
satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule requiring a
detention order to be issued within a specific time frame following the
last prejudicial act. However, when there is undue delay in making
the proposal and passing the detention order, the same would
undermine its validity, particularly when no convincing or plausible
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:61590
explanation is offered for the delay.
8. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in
the present case, it can be seen that the case registered against the
detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1609/2024 of Ponnani Police Station. The last prejudicial activity
was committed on 07.12.2024. From the records it is evident that
after the commission of the said crime, the accused absconded and he
was subsequently arrested only on 26.02.2025. The records further
reveal that the District Police Chief, Malappuram, submitted the
proposal to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings
under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act only on 28.03.2024. Therefore, it
is evident that there is a delay of two months and 19 days in
submitting the proposal before the arrest of the detenu in connection
with the last prejudicial activity and there is a total delay of three
months and 20 days from the date of last prejudicial activity. The said
delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing natural justice
principles.
9. Curiously, in the impugned order itself it is admitted that
there occurred some delay in mooting the proposal. The reason for
the said delay shown in the impugned order is that additional time
was required to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu
was involved. In the case at hand, four cases formed the basis for
proposing and issuing the detention order. The details of those cases
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:61590
were readily available and could have been obtained without delay,
given the technological upgradation attained by the law enforcement
authority. Therefore, the explanation that additional time was
required to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu is
involved is not justifiable. Though it is true that the accused was
absconding after the commission of the last prejudicial activity, there
is no legal impediment in initiating proceedings under KAA(P) Act
against an accused who had absconded after the last prejudicial
activity. On the other hand, when the accused is neither apprehended
nor in custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity the
sponsoring authority should have been more vigilant to take quick
action to initiate proceedings under KAA(P) Act, especially when the
accused is qualified to be booked under the said Act.
10. If the Superintendent of Police who mooted the proposal
was having bonafide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-
social activities by the detenu, definitely he would have acted swiftly
after the last prejudicial activity. In the case at hand, as already
stated, there is a delay of more than three months in mooting the
proposal for the detention order. Therefore, nobody could be blamed
if it is found that, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and
the purpose of detention is snapped. The delay in mooting the
proposal itself shows that the proposed officer did not have any
genuine apprehension regarding the immediate repetition of criminal
activities by the accused.
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:61590
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P3
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of High Security
Prison, Viyyur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Sadiq S/o.
Rasack, forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with
any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of High Security Prison, Viyyur, Thrissur forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.975/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:61590
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 975/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME
NO. 1609 OF 2024 OF PONNANI POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL
FILED BY THE SHO, PONNANI POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.05.2025
HAVING NO. DCMPM/4835/2024-S1 PASSED
BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DETENTION
