Kerala High Court
Syamala vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:63588
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 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA,
1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 841 OF 2025
CRIME NO.396/2019 OF Anchalummoodu Police Station,
Kollam
PETITIONER:
SYAMALA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. SUDARSHANAN, ALUNINNAVILA, PRAKKULAM
CHERI, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691602
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
(HOME), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KERALA, STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN -
691013
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:63588
4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM
CITY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
5 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 691601
7 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695012
8 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, VIYUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
n
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:63588
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of one Vishak @ Kochunni ('detenu'
for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is
directed against an order of detention dated 24.03.2025 passed by the
3rd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity).
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Kollam City, on 23.01.2025, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 3rd respondent. For the purpose of
initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a
'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
Altogether, eleven cases in which the detenu got involved have been
considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order
of detention. Out of the eleven cases considered by the jurisdictional
authority, the case registered regarding the last prejudicial activity is
crime No.1572/2024 of Anchalamoodu Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 75(iv),126(2),79
and 351(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
3. We heard Sri.C. Rajendran, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:63588
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in
blatant violation of the statutory provision contained under the
KAA(P)Act, the copy of the order of detention was not served on the
detenu. According to the counsel, the non-service of the copy of the
detention order vitiates the entire proceedings, and on that sole
ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The counsel
further pointed out that, though a representation was prepared by him
on behalf of the detenu and forwarded the same to the Jail
Superintendent for being transmitted to the Government after
obtaining the signature of the detenu, the said representation has not
been so far considered by the Government till date, nor has any
communication been made regarding its fate. According to the
counsel, the non-consideration of the representation by the
Government is fatal, and the detenu is entitled to get released
forthwith.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the
necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind.
According to the Government Pleader, the contention of the petitioner
that the copy of the detention order was not served on the detenu is
absolutely baseless. The counsel further submitted that no
representation from the detenu has, so far, been received by the
Government. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the
Government failed to consider such a representation or that its fate
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:63588
was not communicated to the detenu.
6. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident
from the records, the case registered against the detenu with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1572/2024 of Anchalamoodu
Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 75(iv), 126(2), 79 and 351(1) of BNS. The incident which led
to the registration of the said case occurred on 05.12.2024. The
proposal for the initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act was
mooted by the sponsoring authority on 23.01.2025. It was on
24.03.2025, the jurisiditional authority passed the impugned order.
Therefore, it is discernible that there is no inordinate delay either in
mooting the proposal or in passing the impugned order after the date
of last prejudicial activity.
7. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the copy of the detention order was not
served on the detenu. It is obvious that when a person is arrested in
connection with a detention order, the officer arresting shall give the
arrestee a copy of the detention order. It is a statutory obligation of
the arresting officer. However, from a perusal of the copy of a
detention order made available by the learned Government Pleader,
we are satisfied that a copy of the detention order was duly served on
the detenu. In the said copy, there is a specific endorsement that a
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:63588
readable copy of the detention order was received by the detenu.
Beneath the said endorsement, a signature purportedly that of the
detenu, with his name also finds a place. Having regard to the same,
we have no hesitation in holding that the detenu could not be heard to
say that he did not receive the copy of the impugned order. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, sticking on
non-service of a copy of the impugned order, is only liable to be
discarded.
8. Now, while coming to the contention that the representation
submitted by the detenu was not considered by the Government, it is
to be borne in mind that it is a statutory as well as constitutional right
of the detenu to file a representation before the Government. When
such a representation is filed, it is incumbent upon the Government to
consider it at the earliest possible opportunity and to communicate
the fate of the representation to the detenu. In the case at hand, the
learned counsel strenuously urged that though a representation was
prepared by him on behalf of the detenu and forwarded the same to
the Jail Superintendent for being transmitted to the Government after
obtaining the signature of the detenu, the said representation has not
been so far considered by the Government till date, nor has any
communication been made regarding its fate. Per contra, the learned
Government Pleader resisted the said contention by denying the
receipt of such a representation by the Government. However, in
order to prove that a representation was sent to the Jail
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:63588
Superintendent, the learned counsel has produced a communication
which he had received from the Deputy Superintendent of Post
Offices, Ernakulam Division. In the said communication, it is
specifically stated that, as per the report of the Sub-Postmaster,
Viyyur, a postal item booked on 30.04.2025 addressed to the
Superintendent of Central Prison was delivered from Viyyur Post
Office to the addressee. Therefore, we are of the view that the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had
prepared a representation on behalf of the detenu and sent the same
to the Jail Superintendent for transmitting it to the Government after
obtaining the signature of the detenu stands established. When such
a representation was received by the Jail Superintendent, it was
incumbent upon him to hand it over to the detenu for getting his
signature and thereafter to forward the same to the Government. The
said misfeasances on the part of the Jail Superintendent will certainly
hamper the constitutional right of a detenu to file an effective
representation before the Government impugning the detention order.
Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order of detention is
liable to be set aside on the said sole ground.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the order
of detention, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is set
aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, is directed to
release the detenu, Sri.Vishak @ Kochunni forthwith, if his detention
is not required in connection with any other case.
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:63588
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:63588
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 841/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
396/2019 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 07/04/2019
Exhibit P3 THE FIS STATEMENT IN CRIME NO.
396/2019 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 06/04/2019
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR IN
CRIME NO. 396/2019 OF ANCHALUMMOODU
POLICE STATION DATED 01/05/2019
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
243/2021 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 09/04/2021
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
736/2022 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 14/08/2022
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIS STATEMENT IN
CRIME NO. 736/2022 OF ANCHALUMMOODU
POLICE STATION DATED 14/08/2022
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
744/2022 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 17/08/2022
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND
CERTIFICATE OF THE VICTIM IN CRIME
NO. 744/2022 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 17/08/2022
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
15/2023 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION
DATED 04/01/2023
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
132/2023 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE
STATION DATED 03/02/2023
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
133/2023 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE
STATION DATED 03/02/2023
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
169/2023 OF SASTHANCOTTAH POLICE
STATION DATED 02/02/2023
WP(Crl.) No.841/2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:63588
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
803/2024 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 15/06/2024
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR CRIME NO.
1572/2024 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 07/12/2024
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
297/2025 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE
STATION DATED 15/02/2025
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING
BAIL IN CRL.M.P. NO.1758/2025 OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, KOLLAM DATED 25-03-2025
Exhibit P18 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL
RECEIPT DATED 30/04/2025
Exhibit 19 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE
REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
DETENUE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
THROUGH 6TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit 20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CONFIRMING
THE DETENTION ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 26/05/2025
