[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Chinchumol vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:16288
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 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 233 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
CHINCHUMOL
AGED 25 YEARS
W/O SANU AUGUSTIN @ AUGUSTIN V.J,
KARUVELI HOUSE, SANTHOM COLONY BHAGAM,
KARUVELIPADY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI, PIN - 695001
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,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
REVENUE TOWER,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682035
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
W.P(Crl). No.233 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:16288
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR,THRISSUR DIST,
PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR
HEARING 24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.233 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:16288
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
13.10.2025 passed against one Sanu Augustin @ Augustin V. J. (herein after
referred to as 'detenu'), 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 wife of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed
by the Government vide order dated 30.01.2026, and the detenu has been
ordered to be detained for a period of six months with effect from the date
of detention.
2. The records reveal that on 29.08.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, seeking
initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the
KAA(P) Act, before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, five cases in
which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is
Crime No.949/2025 of Kalamassery Police Station, alleging commission of
offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act.
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 of detention was passed without proper application of mind
W.P(Crl). No.233 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:16288
and on improper consideration of facts. The learned counsel further
submitted that, though the impugned order was passed on 13.10.2025, the
same was executed only on 30.10.2025. According to the counsel, the said
delay in executing the order is unjustifiable and will breach the statutory
provision regarding the execution of such an order. On the said premises, it
was urged that Ext.P1 order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader,
submitted that the detention order was passed after proper application of
mind and upon arriving at the requisite subjective as well as objective
satisfaction, and hence no interference is warranted in the impugned
order. According to the learned Government Pleader, after obtaining bail
in the last prejudicial activity, the detenu absconded, and that is the reason
why there occurred some delay in executing the order and hence the
authority could not be faulted for the delayed execution of the impugned
order.
6. As evident from the records, altogether five cases formed the
basis for passing the detention order, which is under challenge in this Writ
Petition. The incident that led to the registration of the case with respect to
the last prejudicial activity occurred on 14.07.2025, and on the same day,
the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on
29.08.2025, a proposal was forwarded by the sponsoring authority for the
initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the detenu. It was
on 13.10.2025 that the impugned order was passed. The sequence of the
events narrated above reveals that there was no unreasonable delay either
in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.
W.P(Crl). No.233 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:16288
7. However, from a perusal of the records, it is evident that
although the impugned order was passed on 13.10.2025, the same was
executed only on 30.10.2025. Thus, there is a delay of seventeen days in
the execution of the impugned order. While examining the said delay, it is
relevant to note that in the last case registered against the detenu, he was
granted bail on 01.09.2025, subject to certain stringent conditions. One of
the conditions required him to appear before the Investigating Officer for
interrogation between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Monday for a
period of three months. There is absolutely no convincing material on
record to show that the detenu violated any of the said conditions.
Furthermore, had the detenu failed to comply with the condition requiring
his appearance before the Investigating Officer, it was always open to the
Investigating Officer to move an application for cancellation of bail.
Admittedly, no such application has been filed so far. The only reasonable
inference, therefore, is that the detenu was scrupulously complying with
the bail conditions and was available within the local jurisdiction. In such
circumstances, the delay in executing the detention order remains
unexplained and unjustified. Consequently, the submission of the learned
Government Pleader that the detenu had absconded after the passing of
the detention order, and that such abscondence occasioned the delay in its
execution, cannot be accepted. The delayed execution of the impugned
order is fatal, particularly when no convincing explanation whatsoever has
been assigned for the said delay. When there is no special reason that
justifies the delayed execution, the same is a ground to interfere with the
impugned order.
W.P(Crl). No.233 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:16288
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the Ext.P1
detention order is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur,
is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Sanu Augustin @ Augustin V. J.,
forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other
case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Kannur, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A. K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.233 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:16288
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 233 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
DCEKM/10737/2025-M7 DATED 13.10.2025 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.
376/2026/HOME DATED
30.01.202610.09.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT,DATED 22.12.2025
