Kerala High Court
Sheeja Karthikeyan vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 742 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHEEJA KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 46 YEARS
W/O GOPAKUMAR, 14/07, THANDASSERY, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
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,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680003
4 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI ANAS K A
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2025,
THE COURT ON 25.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
2
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
The above captioned writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. call for the records leading to Ext. P1 order and quash the same by
the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction.
ii. issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to
produce the body of the detenu viz. Gopakumar @ Gopu, aged 43
years, s/o Raveendran, Thazhekkadu House, Nayarangadi Desom,
Kallur Village, Thrissur, the husband of the petitioner who is illegally
detained in Central Prison, Kannur before this Hon'ble Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 detention order dated
03.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Thrissur detaining
Gopakumar @ Gopu, 43 years [for the sake of brevity, 'the detenu'] invoking the
powers under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
['KAA(P) Act' for the sake of brevity]. The records would reveal that a proposal for
initiating the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was submitted by the 3rd respondent
on 07.04.2025. The detenu was classified as 'Known Rowdy" under Section 2p(iii)
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
3
of the KAA(P) Act on account of his involvement in four cases. Apart from those
four cases, he was involved in four other cases which were reported prior to seven
years of the detention order. The details of cases considered for the detention
order are as follows:
1) Crime No.1322/2020 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for
offence under Sections 341, 323, 326, 392 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, which is pending trial.
2) Crime No.994/2024 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for
offence under Sections 294(b), 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of BNS,
which is pending trial
3) Crime No.291/2025 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for
offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), 351(2), 110,
and 3(5) of BNS.
4) Crime No.294/2025 of Puthukkad Police Station, registered for
offence under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a),
140(1), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 310(2), 109(1), 190(1), 351
and 190 of BNS.
3. The last prejudicial activity is Crime No.294/2025 of Puthukkad Police
Station in which the detenu has been implicated as accused No.1. The detenu was
arrested on 01.03.2025, and he is in judicial custody.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order was passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
4
objective and subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. Ext.P1 detention
order was passed in a mechanical manner. The learned counsel would further
submit that there is a delay of two months from the last prejudicial act and the
passing of Ext.P1 detention order. The detenu was arrested in connection with the
last prejudicial act on 01.03.2025, and he is in judicial custody.
5. The learned counsel would further submit that, in view of the
two-month delay, the live link between the last prejudicial act and the detention
order gets snapped. It is also contended that the offences allegedly involving the
detenu do not adversely affect public order, as they pertain to private disputes
between individuals. Furthermore, it is submitted that the sponsoring authority
failed to consider whether an externment order under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act
would have been sufficient to deter or prevent the detenu from indulging in
anti-social activities. The non-consideration and the delay in consideration of
Exts.P2 and P3 are yet another ground urged by the counsel for the writ petitioner.
6. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay
has been adequately explained in the impugned order itself. It was further
submitted that the offences in which the detenu is involved are of a grave and
serious nature, which would have an adverse effect on public order. In the last
crime, the allegation is that the car driven by accused No.1 deliberately dashed
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
5
against a scooter and inflicted serious injuries to the de facto complainant and
snatched her gold chain, mobile phone etc. The efficacy of the bail conditions
were also considered by the detaining authority. He pointed out that steps were
initiated for the cancellation of the bail. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor
would submit that the impugned order was passed after scrupulously complying
with the statutory formalities and arriving at a subjective and objective satisfaction
by the detaining authority.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
there is a delay of two months between the last prejudicial act and the detention
order, thereby breaking the live link. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance
on the judgment of the Apex Court in T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala
[(1989)4 SCC 741]. In this judgment, the Apex Court observed as under:
"10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised
thus: 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 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
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
6
precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances
and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It
follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by
merely counting number of months between the offending acts and
the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay
between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order,
the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has
satisfactorily examined 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."
9. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The delay is satisfactorily explained as the time taken for the collection
and scrutiny of the materials.
10. The learned counsel, placing reliance on Stenny Aleyamma Saju v.
State of Kerala and Others [2017 (3) KHC 517], submitted that the mere
registration of the crime against the detenu, ipso facto, is insufficient to invoke
Section 3 of the KAA(P) Act. We are not persuaded by the said contention. The
detenu herein was arrayed as accused No.1 in the last prejudicial act. He was
arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The allegation is that the detenu drove
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
7
the car, which dashed against the scooter of the de facto complainant, and snatched
her gold chain and mobile phone. The role of the detenu is very clear from the case
records placed before the detaining authority and it was after arriving at the
requisite satisfaction that the detention order was passed.
11. The next contention is regarding the non-consideration and the delay
in the consideration of Exts. P2 and P3 representations dated 17.05.2025. In
response, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the confirmation order in this
case, which shows that the representations submitted by the petitioner before the
Advisory Board and the Government were considered without undue delay.
Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention also.
12. The next contention is that, Ext.P1 order is passed without proper
application of mind. The records would reveal that a rowdy history sheet was
opened against the detenu on 24.02.2017. Thereafter, proceedings under Section
107 Cr.P.C. were initiated, and the detenu executed a bond on 19.04.2024. Since
the detenu was involved in various crimes and anti-social activities, a report was
submitted under Section 129(e) of the BNSS Act before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Irinjalakuda.
13. The records would further reveal that the detaining authority
considered the efficacy of the bail conditions and accordingly initiated bail
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
8
cancellation proceedings against the detenu. The detention order was passed with
proper application of mind and arrived at objective and subjective satisfaction by
the detaining authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
decision in Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India [2025 (4) SCC 476]. In Joy
Kitty's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that the detaining authority shall
consider and record satisfaction about the efficacy of bail conditions already
imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction before passing the detention order.
14. In the case on hand it has been stated in the detention order that the
bail applications filed in Crime Nos. 291/2025 and 294/2025 before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, were rejected, and the detenu is attempting to
obtain bail. The authority also considered that, if the petitioner is released on bail,
he is most likely to indulge in anti-social activities. On going through Ext.P1 order, it
is clear that the detaining authority has applied its mind as to the efficacy and
sufficiency of the bail conditions and submitted a report for the cancellation of bail
of the detenu
15. In Ibrahim Bachu Bafan and Another v. State of Gujarat &
Others [1985(2) SCC 24], the Apex Court has held that it is not open for the
Court to sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction entertained by the detaining
authority, unless the satisfaction is vitiated by malafides or by total absence of
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
materials.
We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/
2025:KER:54811
W.P(Crl) No.742/2025
10
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 742/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DCTSR-5369/2025-C5 DATED
03.05.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.05.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.05.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
