Kerala High Court
Ajitha M vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:5502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 4TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 1390 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
AJITHA M., AGED 20 YEARS
LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY KANTHALLOOR, IDUKKI - 685620
NOW RESIDING AT , SREENIKETHAN (H), CHELAMATTOM,
OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683550
BY ADVS.
BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
CHARUTHA BHAIJU
CHANDHANA BHAIJU
BASIL SAJAN
FATHIM NAVAS
KAVYA RANI JAYAPRAKASH
LEKSHMI PRIYA V.
ANJANA V.
BASIL SCARIA
GEORGIE SIMON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :2:
MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KODANAD POLICE STATION KODANAD, ERNAKULAM RURAL,
PIN - 683544
6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, KURUPPAMPPADY,
RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
7 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683542
8 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KALADY POLICE STATION, KALADY, ERNAKULAM RURAL,
PIN - 683574
9 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683562
10 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTAPPADY POLICE STATION, KOTTAPADY, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686692
ADV. SRI. K.A. ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.01.2025, THE COURT ON 24.01.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :3:
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of Alwin Babu ('detenu' for the sake of
brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1
order of detention dated 09.09.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under
Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The said order stands confirmed by the
Government vide order dated 12.11.2024 after obtaining the opinion of
the Advisory Board and he has been ordered to be detained for a period of
six months with effect from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural on 19.07.2024 seeking initiation of
proceedings against the petitioner's husband under the KAA(P) Act before
the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. 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. Altogether 11
cases in which the petitioner's husband was involved have been
considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of
detention and the details of the said cases are given below:-
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :4:
Sl. Offences involved Present
Crime No. Police Station Crime Date status of
No. under Sections
case
1 1015/2021 Kodanad 30.11.2021 294(b), 506, 34 IPC Pending trial
340/2023 30.07.2023 U/s. 379, 34 IPC Pending trial
2 Kodanad
U/s. 457, 461, 380,
3 453/2023 Kuruppampady Pending trial
10.07.2023 34 IPC
U/s.457, 461, 380,
Kuruppampady Pending trial
4 524/2023 01.08.2023 34 IPC
U/s.457, 461, 380
5 238/2024 Kuruppampady 14.03.2024 IPC Pending trial
U/s.457, 461, 380,
6 136/2024 Kottappadi 19.04.2024 34 IPC Pending trial
457, 461, 380, 34
7 550/2024 Perumbavur 24.042024 Pending trial
IPC
457, 461, 380 r/w 34
8 562/2024 Perumbavur 28.04.2024 Pending trial
IPC
Kuruppampady Under
9 262/2024 20.03.2024 457, 461, 380 IPC
investigation
10 529/2024 Kalady 10.06.2024 457, 380, 461 IPC Under
investigation
457, 461, 380, 34
11 556/2024 Kunnathunadu 11.06.2024 Pending trial
IPC
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :5:
3. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity
is crime No.556/2024 of Kunnathunadu Police Station, alleging the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 457, 461, 380 and 34
IPC. The detaining authority reckoned the said case for arriving at the
requisite objective and subjective satisfaction for passing the detention
order.
4. We heard Smt. Kavya Rani Jayaprakash, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government
Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary and was passed without proper application
of mind. According to the learned counsel, there is inordinate delay of
around three months in passing the detention order after the last
prejudicial activity and the same will snap the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. The learned counsel
further urged that the detaining authority passed the impugned order in a
casual manner without arriving at the requisite objective and subjective
satisfaction and hence interference is warranted. The learned counsel
urged that the detaining authority failed to take notice of the fact that the
detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :6:
respect to the last prejudicial activity on stringent conditions. According to
the counsel, the said condition would have been sufficient to deter the
detenu from getting involved in further criminal activities and an order
under KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated under the said circumstance.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that
there is no unreasonable delay in passing Ext.P1 detention order. The
learned Government Pleader points out that the detenu is a
history-sheeter registered with a series of criminal cases. Although
proceedings under Section 15(1) of KAA(P) Act were initiated against him
earlier the same would not fetch any positive result as the petitioner again
recurrently got involved in criminal activities. The learned Government
Pleader urged that there is no unreasonable delay in passing the
impugned order and the contention of the petitioner that the live link
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is
snapped will not be sustained. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader
would submit that some minimal delay is inevitable while passing an order
under KAA(P) Act especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure
natural justice principles. According to the Government Pleader, no
interference is warranted in the impugned order and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :7:
7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and
have perused the records.
8. The records show that the detenu was classified as known
rowdy considering his recurrent involvement in 11 criminal cases. While
considering the contention of the petitioner sticking on the delay in
passing the impugned order it could not be ignored that an order under
Section 15(1) of KAA(P) Act is having a significant impact on the personal
as well as the fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, such an
order could not be passed in a casual manner instead it can only be
passed on credible materials and 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
explanation is offered for the delay.
9. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [(1989) 4 SCC
741], the Apex Court held that the question whether the prejudicial
activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is
proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between the
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :8:
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be
precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and
no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that behalf. It follows that
the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting
the number of months between the offending acts and the order of
detention. However, when there is an undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activities and the passing of the detention order, the court has
to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily explained
such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why
such a delay has occasioned when called upon to answer and further the
court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in
the circumstances of each case.
10. Having regard to the principles enumerated in the above
decision, while coming to the facts in the present case it can be seen that
the last prejudicial activity was committed by the detenu on 11.06.2024.
The case with respect to the last prejudicial activity was registered on
12.06.2024 and on the same day, the accused/detenu was arrested.
Thereafter the detenu was released on bail only on 19.08.2024. In the
meanwhile, on 19.07.2024 the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural,
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :9:
mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act.
Subsequently, after the release of the petitioner on bail an additional
report was also submitted by the District Police Chief before the detaining
authority. After considering all the relevant materials the detaining
authority passed the detention order on 09.09.2024. The sequence of
events narrated above clearly indicates that there is no unreasonable delay
in passing the impugned order. The proposal for detention is seen
forwarded while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the
last prejudicial activity. Moreover, some minimal delay is quite natural to
occur as some time is necessary for complying with the necessary legal
formalities as well as for collecting the details of the cases in which the
detenu was involved. Therefore, we cannot agree with the contentions of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is inordinate delay in
passing the detention order after the last prejudicial activity and the live
link between the last prejudicial activity and the order is snapped.
11. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order
without considering the fact that the detenu was granted bail in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity and sufficient
conditions were imposed on him in the said bail order. The said contention
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :10:
of the petitioner is also not sustainable. Because a bare perusal of the
impugned order itself reveals that it was after taking notice of the fact that
the detenu was on bail in connection with the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity and after getting convinced that certain
stringent conditions were imposed in the said bail order, the jurisdictional
authority passed the impugned order. Therefore, the contention that the
detenu was on bail is not adverted to by the jurisdictional authority in the
impugned order is baseless. Rather in the order, it is specifically mentioned
that the detenu's precedents show that he had a history of repeatedly
involving in criminal activities irrespective of the bail conditions imposed
while granting bail in the previous cases. Furthermore, in the order, it is
mentioned that the detaining authority satisfied that bail conditions
clamped alone are not sufficient to restrain the detenu from involving in
criminal activities.
12. From a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that all the
necessary procedural requirements before passing an order under Section
3(1) of the KAA(P) Act have been scrupulously complied with in this case.
We are further satisfied that the competent authority passed the detention
order after thoroughly verifying all the materials placed by the sponsoring
authority and after arriving at the requisite objective and subjective
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :11:
satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under
Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in any manner.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has not
made any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
2025:KER:5502
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1390 of 2024 :12:
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1390/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO.
DCEKM/7986/2024-M7 DATED 09/09/2024 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF
KERALA ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION)
ACT 2007
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION
DATED 09/09/2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3 THE MEMO FOR EXECUTING ORDER OF DETENTION
DATED 10/09/2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/08/2023
NO. 448/TD/2023/KDND ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT
TO THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER KAAPA-15523/2024/ER
DATED 27/08/2024
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF KAAPA-19345/2023/ER ORDER
DATED 18.11.2023 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF 15(1)(B) ORDER DATED
27/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 27/08/2024 NO.
KAPPA-15523/2024-ER
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. G.O.(RT.)
NO.3316/2024 HOME DATED 12/11/24 PASSED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
