Kerala High Court
Chinnumol vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:77979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1319 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
CHINNUMOL
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O SHAIJU, KARIPADATHU VEEDU, PARAYANKADAVU,
KATTOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680702
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 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION,THRISSUR,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680003
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF
CIVIL STATION ROAD,THRISSUR,THRISSUR DIST,
PIN - 680020
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
WP(Crl.) No.1319 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:77979
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1319 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:77979
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of Shaiju @ Shaijumon (herein after
referred to as 'detenu') and her challenge in this Writ Petition is
directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 29.09.2025 passed
by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for brevity).
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Thirssur Rural, on 19.07.2025 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, six cases in which the detenu got involved have been
considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned
order of detention.
3. The case registered against the detenu with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is crime No.598/2025 of Kattoor Police
Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 351(3), 126(2), 296(b), 111(2)(b) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
WP(Crl.) No.1319 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:77979
4. We heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, 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 was passed without proper application of mind and
without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to the counsel, the copies of some of the
relied-upon documents served on the detenu are illegible, and the
lapse on the part of the detaining authority in not serving the legible
copies of some of the relied-upon documents prejudiced him, as he
could not file an effective representation against the detention order
before the Advisory Board. On these premises, it was urged that the
impugned order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed after complying with all
the necessary legal formalities and upon due application of mind.
According to the Government Pleader, the jurisdictional authority
passed the detention order after proper appreciation of facts and on
arriving at the requisite objective, as well as subjective satisfaction.
It was further submitted that copies of all the relevant records were
furnished to the detenu, and he was duly informed of his right to file
representation against the detention order before the Government as
WP(Crl.) No.1319 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:77979
well as the Advisory Board.
7. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident
from the records, the case registered against the detenu with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.598/2025 of Kattoor Police
Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 351(3), 126(2), 296(b), 111(2)(b) r/w 3(5) of the BNS. The
date of occurrence of the said case was on 17.06.2025. The records
further reveal that the detenu, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused,
was arrested in the said case on 18.06.2025 and released on bail on
26.06.2025. It was on 29.09.2025, the impugned order was passed.
Subsequently, it was on 19.07.2025, while the detenu was on bail, the
sponsoring authority mooted a proposal against him for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, which culminated in passing the
impugned order.
8. As already mentioned, the main contention taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the copies of the
relied-upon documents served on the detenu are not legible and
hence the detenu was handicapped from filing an effective
representation before the Government. In order to verify the veracity
of the said contention, we have examined the case file made available
to us by the learned Government Pleader. On verification, we are
WP(Crl.) No.1319 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:77979
convinced that the copies of some of the relied-upon documents,
which find a place in the case file, are not legible.
9. The obligation of the detaining authority to furnish legible
copies of relied-upon documents to the detenu is not a mere
formality. Only when the said procedure is scrupulously complied
with, the detenu can file an effective representation before the
Advisory Board and the Government. The right of the detenu to file
an effective representation before the Government as well as the
Advisory Board is a constitutional right under Article 22(5) and also a
statutory right. Therefore, it is the duty of the detaining authority to
ensure that the copies of the impugned order, as well as the relevant
documents which are furnished to the detenu at the time of effecting
his arrest, are legible to enable him to approach the Advisory Board
as well as the Government, with an effective representation.
10. In the case at hand, it is established that some of the
copies of the relied-upon documents which are supplied to the
detenu are not legible. The said serious lapse is a ground to interfere
with the impugned order. An order of detention, under the KAA(P)
Act, has wide ramifications as far as the personal as well as the
fundamental rights of an individual are concerned. Therefore, the
detaining authority should have acted with much alacrity in ensuring
that all the procedural formalities were scrupulously adhered to.
WP(Crl.) No.1319 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:77979
In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the Ext.P1
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Kannur, is directed to release the detenu, Sri.Shaiju @ Shaijumon
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/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1319 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:77979
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1319/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTSR/10394/2025-C4 DATED
29.09.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
