[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rafeeka Nazar vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:16246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 223 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
RAFEEKA NAZAR, AGED 51 YEARS
W/O NAZAR, KUNNEL VEETTIL, PERINGALA MURIYIL,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 683565
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
SHRI.MUHAMMAD A. P.
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,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
4 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS,
PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670004
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :2: 2026:KER:16246
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :3: 2026:KER:16246
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
03.11.2025 passed against one Adinan @ Boxer, (the detenu) under
Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
('KAA(P) Act' for brevity). The petitioner herein is the mother of the
detenu. The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government vide
order dated 31.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained
for a period of six months, from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that on 08.10.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, 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.
3. Altogether, six cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1722/2025 of Kayamkulam Police
Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections
189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), and 118(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS).
4. We heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :4: 2026:KER:16246
Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind
and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further
contended that, among the copies of the relied-upon documents served on
the detenu, some were illegible, and that the non-service of legible copies
of all relied-upon documents constitutes a sufficient ground to interfere
with the impugned order. It is further contended that there is a delay of
twenty-four days in executing the detention order from the date of its
issuance, and the said delay is not justifiable. According to the counsel, if
the detenu had been absconding after the commission of the last
prejudicial activity, it was incumbent upon the executing authority to
report the said matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 6 of
the KAA(P) Act. However, no such report was sent in this case. On these
premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed by the jurisdictional
authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The Government
Pleader further submitted that after the commission of the last prejudicial
activity, the detenu absconded, and it was for that reason that a delay of
twenty-four days in executing the impugned order. The learned
Government Pleader pointed out that after the passing of the order, the
executing authority had been making all earnest efforts to trace the
absconding detenu to execute the order, and therefore, the delay of
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :5: 2026:KER:16246
twenty-four days in executing the order is fully justified. It was further
urged that under KAA(P) Act, no particular time is prescribed for initiating
proceedings under Section 6 of the KAA(P) Act against a detenu who has
absconded or is concealing himself. Hence, the detenu cannot be heard to
contend that the executing authority was bound to initiate proceedings
under Section 6 within a particular time. The learned Government Pleader
further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that legible copies
of relied-upon documents were not supplied to the detenu is absolutely
baseless and the said contention is liable to be discarded.
7. As evident from the records, it was the recurrent
involvement of the detenu in criminal activities that led to the passing of
Ext.P1 detention order against him. Altogether six cases in which the
detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing the detention order.
Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.1722/2025 of Kayamkulam Police Station,
alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 190, 118(1), and 118(2) of BNS.
8. The incident that led to the registration of the said case
occurred on 11.09.2025. However, after the commission of the said
offence, the detenu, who is arrayed as the first accused in that case, went
absconding. It was on 08.10.2025, that the sponsoring authority mooted
the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the
detenu. Subsequently, on 03.11.2025, Ext.P1 detention order was passed.
The sequence of the events narrated above clearly demonstrates that
there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :6: 2026:KER:16246
order. Moreover, some minimum time is necessary for collecting the
details of the cases in which the detenu got involved and for verification of
the records. Therefore, the minimal delay that occurred in mooting the
proposal is negligible, and it cannot be said that the live link between the
last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped.
9. As already mentioned, one of the main contentions
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 and the Advisory Board. Undisputedly, 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.
10. However, in order to verify the correctness of the
contention that the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the
detenu are illegible, we have perused the file made available before us by
the learned Government Pleader. On such perusal, we are satisfied that
the copies of the few pages of the relied-upon documents that find a place
in the file, though faded, are still readable. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the detenu was handicapped in making an effective representation
before the Government or the Advisory Board. Hence, the contention of
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :7: 2026:KER:16246
the petitioner in the above regard also would fail.
11. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that there is a delay of twenty-four days in executing the
detention order from the date of its issuance and that the said delay is not
justifiable. According to the counsel, if the detenu had been absconding
after the commission of the last prejudicial activity, it was obligatory on
the part of the executing authority to make a report to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate under Section 6 of the KAA(P) Act, which has not been done in
the present case. While considering this contention, it cannot be
overlooked that after the involvement in the last prejudicial activity, the
detenu went absconding. Later, on 27.11.2025, he was arrested, and
Ext.P1 order was executed. Virutally, after twenty-four days from the date
of the order, the accused was traced out, and the order was executed. In
these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any unreasonable
delay in executing the order.
12. When an order of detention is passed against an
absconding person, the authority who is authorised to execute the said
order certainly would require a reasonable time to secure and detain him.
We do agree that as per Section 6 of the KAA(P) Act, when a detention
order is passed against an absconding accused, the authority who is
authorised to execute the order shall make a report in writing to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate for further steps. However, there is no legal
requirement that immediately after passing of a detention order against an
absconding person, the authority authorised to execute the detention
order shall straight away approach the CJM with a report under Section 6
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :8: 2026:KER:16246
of the KAA(P) Act without first making any effort to trace out and
apprehend the detenu.
13. In other words, when an order of detention was
passed against an absconding person, it cannot be said that the authority
executing is bound to forgo all attempts to secure the detenu and instead
rush to the CJM with a report. We do agree that if the order of detention
could not be executed within a reasonable time after taking all the efforts,
the authority must report the same to the CJM. In the case at hand, the
authority took only a reasonable period of twenty-four days to trace out
the accused and to execute the order. Hence, it cannot be said that failure
to file a report before the CJM within twenty-four days renders the
detention order unsustainable.
In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner
has not made out any ground for interference. Hence, the writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P.(Crl.) No.223 of 2026 :9: 2026:KER:16246
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 223 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
ORDER NO. SC5-10276/2025 DATED
03.11.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.11.2025 IN CRL. M.C.NO.9344/2025 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT).NO.
378/2026/HOME DATED 31.01.2026
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.12.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.12.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
