Kerala High Court
Louis vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:38206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 307 OF 2025
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
LOUIS
AGED 58 YEARS
CHAKKICHERI HOUSE, KARIPPALA BHAGAM
PADHUVAPURAM KARA KARUKUTTY VILLAGE
ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM - 683576
BY ADV SRI.ALEX JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(HOME & VIGILANCE), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 69500
3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030
4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ERNAKULAM - 682030
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, KANNUR - 670004
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 30.05.2025, THE COURT ON 02.06.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No. 307 of 2025 :2:
2025:KER:38206
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging Ext.P1 order of detention dated 11.12.2024 passed against
one Antony Louis @ Antoppan under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. The
petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. The said order of detention was
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 11.02.2025, and the detenu
was ordered to be detained for a period of six months from the date of
execution of the order.
2. The records available before us reveal that it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, the
District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, submitted a proposal for the initiation
of proceedings against the detenu under the KAA(P) Act, 2007. For 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, 2007.
3. The authority considered 3 cases in which the detenu was
involved for passing the Ext.P1 order. The case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity committed by the detenu is crime No.1499/2024 of
Koothuparamba Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 310(2), 140(2), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351, 324(5),
W.P.(Crl.) No. 307 of 2025 :3:
2025:KER:38206
111(2)(d),(3),(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri.Alex Joseph, 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 the
Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
proper application of mind. The learned counsel further urged that though
the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity, the fact that the detenu was released on bail was not
taken into consideration by the jurisdictional authority. Moreover, the
jurisdictional authority did not consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions
imposed on the detenu by the court at the time of granting bail. According
to the counsel, the conditions clamped on the detenu at the time of granting
bail were sufficient to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities, and
an order under KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the
impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. It was further submitted that all the procedural
safeguards were duly complied with while passing Ext.P1 order, and hence,
no interference is warranted.
7. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the case registered
W.P.(Crl.) No. 307 of 2025 :4:
2025:KER:38206
with respect to the last prejudicial activity, that was considered by the
jurisdictional authority to pass Ext. P1 order is crime No.1499/2024 of
Koothuparamba Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 310(2), 140(2), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351, 324(5),
111(2)(d),(3),(4) of BNS. The last prejudicial activity was committed on
26.07.2024. Formal arrest of the detenu was recorded in the said case on
05.08.2024, and he was granted bail in the said case on 05.11.2024. It was
on 17.10.2024, while the detenu was in judicial custody, the District Police
Chief, Ernakulam Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under KAA(P) Act against the detenu. It was after complying the necessary
procedural safeguards, the jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P1 order of
detention on 11.12.2024. The sequence of events narrated above reveals
that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under KAA(P) Act or in passing the order of detention.
8. The main contention pressed into service from the side of the
petitioner is that, though the detenu was released on bail in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity as well as in the last but
one case, the fact that the detenu was released on bail was not taken into
consideration by the jurisdictional authority and the authority did not
consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu at the
time of granting bail. According to the counsel, the conditions clamped on
W.P.(Crl.) No. 307 of 2025 :5:
2025:KER:38206
the detenu at the time of granting bail in the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity was sufficient to deter the detenu from repeating
criminal activities and hence, an order under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act
was not at all necessitated.
9. While considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner
in the above regard, it is to be noted that there is no law that precludes
the jurisdictional authority from passing an order under KAA(P) Act against
a person who is already on bail. However, when an order is passed
against a person who is on bail, it is incumbent upon the authority to take
note of the said fact and to consider whether the bail conditions imposed
on such a person while granting bail by the court are sufficient to prevent
him from involving in criminal activities. Keeping in mind the above, while
reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen that it was after the release
of the detenu on bail in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the
jurisdictional authority while passing the order should be cognizant of the
fact that the detenu was on bail in the said case. Similarly, the impugned
order should reflect that the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by
the court while granting bail to the detenu in the said case was duly
considered before passing Ext. P1 order. However, in the impugned order
though it is mentioned that the detenu got bail in the last case registered
W.P.(Crl.) No. 307 of 2025 :6:
2025:KER:38206
against him, it is nowhere mentioned that the conditions imposed by the
court while granting bail to the detenu in the said case are not sufficient to
deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, nobody
could be blamed if it is found that there is non-consideration of the
sufficiency of bail conditions on the part of the jurisdictional authority.
Consequently, it is liable to be held that the Ext.P1 order is vitiated and
warrants interference.
10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order
stands set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur, is directed
to release the detenu, Sri. Antony Louis @ Antoppan 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 Central Prison, Kannur, forthwith.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P.(Crl.) No. 307 of 2025 :7:
2025:KER:38206
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 307/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCEKM/10690/2024
- M7 DATED 11/12/2024 ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS
SUPPLIED TO THE DETENU ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 24/12/2024
SUBMITTED BY THE DETENU BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AND ADVISORY BOARD
Exhibit P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)
NO.455/2025/HOME DATED 11/02/2025 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
