Ushakumari V vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 300 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ushakumari V vs State Of Kerala on 3 June, 2025

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

​       ​       ​    ​    ​    ​      ​      ​   ​




                                                     2025:KER:38655

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                     &
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
    TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1947
                         WP(CRL.) NO. 444 OF 2025
PETITIONER:

        USHAKUMARI V​
        AGED 57 YEARS​
        D/O GANGADHARAN, USHA BHAVANAM, CHELIKUZHI P.O,
        ENATHMANGALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- 691556

        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 - 695001

    2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,​
            CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645

    3       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ​
            PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645

    4       THE CHAIRMAN, ​
            ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
            VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM - 682026
 ​       ​       ​     ​       ​       ​        ​   ​   ​   ​



W.P.(Crl.) No. 444 of 2025​   ​           :2:​ ​   ​
 ​      ​
                                                               2025:KER:38655
​       ​                         ​   ​
​
    5       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,​
            CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, THRISSUR - 670004


        BY ADVS. ​
        SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON 03.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 ​       ​      ​      ​       ​       ​        ​   ​   ​   ​



W.P.(Crl.) No. 444 of 2025​   ​           :3:​ ​   ​
 ​      ​
                                                               2025:KER:38655
​       ​                         ​   ​
​
                                  JUDGMENT

​ Jobin Sebastian, J.

​ The petitioner is the mother of One Umesh Krishnan ('detenu' for

the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed

against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 11.01.2023 passed by the 2nd

respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities

(Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). After considering the

opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the said order of

detention vide order dated 29.04.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be

detained for a period of six months from the date of detention.

​ 2.​ The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the

District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, on 09.12.2022, seeking initiation of

proceedings against the detenu 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 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act. Altogether 10 cases in

which the detenu was involved have been considered by the detaining

authority for passing the impugned order of detention. The case

registered regarding the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1833/2022 of ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

W.P.(Crl.) No. 444 of 2025​ ​ :4:​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:38655 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Adoor Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under

Sections 294(b), 447, and 506 IPC.

3.​ We heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, 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 Ext.

P1 order is passed without proper application of mind and without arriving

on the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to

the counsel, as only bailable offences were attributed against the detenu in

the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, and he was

not arrested in the said case, the fact that the detenu was granted bail in

the last but one case should have been adverted to in the impugned order

and the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed while granting bail in the

said case should have been considered by the authority while passing the

order. The counsel urged that the jurisdictional authority should have

passed such an order only on being satisfied that the said bail conditions

are not sufficient to restrain the detenu from repeating the criminal

activities. According to the counsel, in the impugned order, there is nothing

to suggest that the same was passed by the jurisdictional authority on

being satisfied that the conditions imposed are not sufficient to deter the

detenu from criminal activities, and hence, the order is liable to be ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

W.P.(Crl.) No. 444 of 2025​ ​ :5:​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:38655 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ interfered with.

​ 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, as the jurisdictional authority passed the order after

proper application of mind and arriving at the requisite objective as well as

subjective satisfaction, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

​ 6.​ While considering the rival contentions, it is to be noted that

the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the

detenu is crime No.1833/2022 of Adoor Police Station, alleging commission

of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, and 506 IPC. The date

of occurrence of the said case was on 23.12.2022. The records further

reveal that the detenu was not arrested in the said case, and all the

offences alleged in the said case are bailable in nature. However, as

evident from the records, prior to the commission of the last prejudicial

activity, the detenu got involved in a case registered as crime No.588/2022

of Aranmula Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable

under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(A)(ii) IPC and Section 92(b)(d) of the Right

of Persons with Disabilities Act. In the said case, he was arrested on

13.09.2022 and subsequently released on bail on 14.12.2022. Therefore, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

W.P.(Crl.) No. 444 of 2025​ ​ :6:​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:38655 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to take note of the fact

that the detenu was on bail in the said case and also to consider the

sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on him by the court while

granting bail. Moreover, the jurisdictional authority should have passed

such an order of detention only on being satisfied that the said bail

conditions are not sufficient to restrain the detenu from repeating the

criminal activities. It is true that, in the impugned order, it is specifically

mentioned that on 14.12.2022, the detenu was released on bail in the last

but one case registered against him as crime No. 588/2022 of Aranmula

Police Station. Nevertheless, the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed

on the detenu at the time of granting bail is not at all considered by the

jurisdictional authority. In short, it is liable to be held that there is nothing

to suggest that Ext. P1 order was passed by the jurisdictional authority

after being satisfied that the conditions imposed are not sufficient to deter

the detenu from repeating criminal activities. Hence, the impugned order is

vitiated and liable to be interfered with.

7.​ In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of

detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, is

directed to release the detenu, Sri. Umesh Krishnan forthwith, if his

detention is not required in connection with any other case.

 ​      ​       ​      ​       ​           ​        ​        ​      ​      ​



W.P.(Crl.) No. 444 of 2025​   ​               :7:​ ​        ​
 ​      ​
                                                                              2025:KER:38655
​      ​                              ​   ​
​
​      The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the

Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, forthwith. ​

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Sd/-

​      ​       ​      ​       ​           ​                P.B. SURESH KUMAR
                                  ​       ​        ​             ​ JUDGE             ​   ​
​      ​

                                                                    Sd/-
​      ​       ​      ​       ​           ​            ​        JOBIN SEBASTIAN
                                                                    JUDGE

ANS
 ​      ​       ​      ​       ​       ​        ​   ​   ​   ​



W.P.(Crl.) No. 444 of 2025​   ​           :8:​ ​   ​
 ​      ​
                                                               2025:KER:38655
​      ​                          ​   ​
​
                          APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 444/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P2                A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

24.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE EXT P2 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT