Kerala High Court
Mini vs State Of Kerala on 15 March, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO. 25 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MINI
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O JOSE, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHEVOOR P.O,
KANIMANGALAM SOUTH,PALISSERY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680027
BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
CIYA E.J.
RESPONDENT/S:
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
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
3 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
4 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,, PIN - 682026
WP(Crl) No.25 of 2024
..2..
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON 15.03.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl) No.25 of 2024
..3..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
The petitioner, mother of the detenu, has approached this Court challenging the order of detention issued under the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as, "the KAA(P)A"].
2. Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on 07.11.2023. Out of the nine crimes registered against the detenu, eight were considered for passing the detention order, details of which are as follows;
Sl. FIR Date of No. occurrence 1 513/2019 of Thrissur Town West Police 29.03.2019
Station u/s 379, 201 r/w 34 IPC and 198 MV Act 2 151/2019 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 28.02.2019 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC 3 355/2019 of Peramangalam Police 24.04.2019 Station u/s 147, 143, 148, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii), 307, 302 r/w 149, 212 IPC and 27 Arms Act 4 698/2019 of Peramangalam Police 30.07.2019 Station u/s 506(i), 385 r/w 34 IPC to WP(Crl) No.25 of 2024 ..4..
14.09.2019 5 799/2020 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 17.07.2020 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506(i), 427 r/w 149 IPC 6 315/2022 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 18.04.2022 307, 332, 353, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC; 20(B)
(ii)A NDPS Act; 27 Arms Act; and 3, 4 PDPP Act 7 317/2022 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 19.04.2022 457, 461, 380 r/w 34 IPC 8 1043/2023 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 12.09.2023 332, 307, 212 r/w 34 IPC
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority while the detenu was in judicial custody from 13.09.2023 in connection with the last prejudicial activity. The last prejudicial activity was on 12.09.2023. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant in the said case was a police officer and the facts of the case are not in regard to any public order violation.
4. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, even after release on bail on earlier occasions, the detenu continued to involve in similar offences and was indulged in offences causing threat to the public at large and hence, to WP(Crl) No.25 of 2024 ..5..
maintain law and order in the respective places, preventive detention of the detenu is necessary.
5. On a perusal of the offences committed, it is seen that the detenu was a threat to the public order and was involved in the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also. It is clear that it was considering the criminal antecedents and on attaining subjective and objective satisfaction, the detention order was passed against the detenu in order to safeguard the interest of the society.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that set-off has to be granted considering the period of judicial custody of the detenu. The said plea of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in Suchithra V.S. v. State of Kerala & Others [2024/KER/17738] [rendered by this Bench], wherein it has been held as follows;
"The period covered under judicial custody cannot be claimed as a set off for the purpose of detention order. The purpose of detention order is related to future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct. It is to secure his future, based on public order, the detention order is passed. Therefore, like in a penal law, the period covered by judicial custody cannot be claimed for a setoff."WP(Crl) No.25 of 2024
..6..
7. The delay occurred has been properly explained by the detaining authority in the detention order. The livelink between the date of last prejudicial activity and the date of passing the detention order has not been snapped or broken. The offences committed by the detenu are grievous in nature and the detention order is issued in order to ensure public peace and tranquility. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the matter.
Accordingly, the WP(Crl.) stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-
WP(Crl) No.25 of 2024
..7..
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 25/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DCTSR/11371/2023-C4 DATED 07.11.2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 18.11.2023. BY REGISTERED POST Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE ISSUANCE OF EXT P2 Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 18.11.2023. BY REGISTERED POST Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARED EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT P4