Kerala High Court
Santhamma T vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:45811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 391 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SANTHAMMA T.
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O KARTHIKEYAN, UDAYANVILA KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE,
KUTHIRAMUKKU, ARUKALICKAL WEST, VAYALA P.O,
ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691554
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SMT. AASHI K. SHAJAN
SMT.MINZA FATHIMA SALIM M.
SMT.BINITHA MARIA THOMAS
SHRI.KEZIL THOTTUKADAVIL CHERIA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM - 682031
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
WP(Crl)No.391 of 2025 :2:
2025:KER:45811
3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691523
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012
ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR
HEARING 25.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.391 of 2025 :3:
2025:KER:45811
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of one Shyamkumar K. @ Kannan
('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition
is directed against Ext.P3 order of detention dated 20.05.2024 passed
by the 3rd 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 said order stands
confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 05.07.2024, and the
detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with
effect from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that, it was after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal
was submitted by the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, on
18.03.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under
Section 3(1) of 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.
WP(Crl)No.391 of 2025 :4:
2025:KER:45811
3. Altogether, six cases in which the detenu got himself
involved were considered by the detaining authority for issuing Ext.P3
order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.202/2024 of Adoor
Police Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 324, 341, 506, 307 r/w 34 IPC, and the detenu is arrayed as
the 3rd accused in the said case.
4. We heard Sri. Manu Ramachandran, 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.P3 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the learned counsel, although the
detenu was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity, in the impugned order, it is mentioned that the
detenu was under judicial custody in the said case. According to the
counsel, the said incorrect mention of a serious fact in the detention
order itself shows non-application of mind on the part of the
jurisdictional authority, rendering the detention order liable to be set
WP(Crl)No.391 of 2025 :5:
2025:KER:45811
aside on the said sole ground.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that Ext.P3 detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority
after proper application of mind, and after arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to him, it was the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that
necessitated the passing of Ext.P3 order, and no interference is
warranted.
7. While considering the rival contentions, it is to be noted that
the last prejudicial activity considered by the jurisdictional authority for
passing Ext.P3 detention order is crime No.202/2024 of Adoor Police
Station alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections
324, 341, 506, 307 r/w 34 IPC. The detenu was arrested in the said
case on 07.02.2024, and he was subsequently granted on bail on
07.05.2024 and released from jail on 08.05.2024. It was thereafter on
20.05.2024, Ext. P3 detention order was passed. It is pertinent to note
that, in Ext.P3 order, it is mentioned that the detenu is still under
judicial custody. In short, the detention order was passed as if the
detenu had not got bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity.
WP(Crl)No.391 of 2025 :6:
2025:KER:45811
While passing Ext. P3 order of detention on 20.05.2024, the
jurisdictional authority should have been aware of the fact that the
detenu had secured bail in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity on 07.05.2024. But the impugned order reveals that
the jurisdictional authority was unaware of this crucial fact while
passing the order. Moreover, as the detenu was on bail while passing
the order, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to consider
the sufficiency of bail conditions clamped on him and to enter into a
satisfaction that those conditions are not sufficient to deter the detenu
from repeating criminal activities. However, the impugned order was
passed by the jurisdictional authority under the assumption that the
detenu is under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial
activity. Therefore, non-application of mind on the part of the
jurisdictional authority is apparent in this case. Hence, the impugned
order is vitiated and liable to be set aside.
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P3 order of
detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri.
Shyamkumar K. @ Kannan, forthwith, if his detention is not required in
WP(Crl)No.391 of 2025 :7:
2025:KER:45811
connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram,
forthwith.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl)No.391 of 2025 :8:
2025:KER:45811
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 391/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
DCPTA/1587/2023-B3 DATED 01.04.2023 OF
RESPONDENT NO.3 (PRIOR DETENTION ORDER)
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL VIDE NO.06/
KAA(P)A-3/PTA/2024/N DATED 18.03.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT NO.3
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCPTA/1574/2024/B3 DATED 20.05.2024
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24.07.2024 IN S.C NO.134/2020 OF FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2024
IN CRL.MP NO.1251/2024 OF JFMC, ADOOR
