Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.The husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred as detenu) has been classified as a 'known rowdy' on the basis of eight cases registered against him. According to the petitioner, the impugned order passed is in W.P.(Crl).312/2020 total violation of Sec.3(3) of KAA(P)A. The approval has not been granted in 12 days from the date of arrest. It is alleged that there is delay in consideration of the representation by the Government. Petitioner further alleges that the detenu was served illegible, non readable and incomplete documents (six in number) which caused prejudice in making an effective representation. It is her further case that there were no records before the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order to prove that the detenu was released on bail after Ext.P14 dismissal of bail; order in Crime No.1052/2019 of Mannachery Police Station. So the detenu can only be presumed as remaining in judicial custody and there is no consideration by the Detaining Authority as to why the detenu should in that context be detained in a preventive manner. Hence according to the petitioner, the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority, approved and confirmed by the authorities concerned, is without any application of mind and is illegal and unconstitutional.

9. According to the petitioner, non readable and incomplete documents, have been produced before the Detaining Authority and without any application of mind,based on such non readable and incomplete documents the impugned order has been passed. To substantiate the contention, the learned counsel brought our attention to W.P.(Crl).312/2020 page No.55 which is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.139/2014 marked as Ext.P5. Copy of the FIR obviously is not a readable one. Page 58 is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.907/2014 which is produced and marked as Ext.P7, which cannot be said to be fully readable. The learned counsel further brought our attention to Page No.61 which according to him, is an incomplete document marked as Ext.P9, which would show that it is an official memorandum dated 17.11.2014 issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alappuzha, intimating the enlargement of the accused on bail. But on the bottom of the document wherein the conditions are enumerated, there is a specific endorsement of 'PTO' (Please Turn Over); but the reverse page is not enclosed which shows that the document is incomplete. Copy of the FIR in Crime No.1692/2015 has been produced and marked as Ext.P10. On looking at Ext.P10, as rightly contended by the petitioner, it evidently cannot be read. Ext.P12, is the memorandum of bail order in Crime No.839/2016. It is illegible and conditions are also not readable from the same. Ext.P13 particulars of the W.P.(Crl).312/2020 accused would show that the detenu is the 2 nd accused in that Crime. Exts.P5, P7, P10 and P12 are not readable and legible and Ext.P9 is an incomplete document supplied to the detenu causing prejudice to his right to make a representation.

17. In this case, we have already found that Exts.P5, P7 P10 and P12 are not readable and legible and Ext.P9 is an incomplete document supplied to the detenu which caused prejudice to the detenu insofar as his right to make a proper representation based on those documents. It has also been found that Crime Nos.622/2020 and 869/2020 alleged to have been registered after the rejection of bail order, Ext.P14, in Crime No.1052/2019 which fact has not been considered by the Detaining Authority. We reiterate there is no order enlarging the accused on bail, after Ext.P14, placed before the Detaining Authority. So much so, the impugned order has been passed by the Detaining Authority without verifying a relevant W.P.(Crl).312/2020 document. Some other documents, Ext.P5 (Crime 139/2014), Exts.P7 and P9 (Crime 907/2014), Ext.P10 (Crime 1692/2015), are non readable copies, which prejudiced the detenu from making a proper representation. That would in turn lead to a conclusion that the impugned detention order has been passed based on two crimes alone ie., Crime Nos.136/2014 and 1052/2019 of Mannancherry Police Station. That would even take away the petitioner out of the purview of "known rowdy" as defined under Sec.2(p) of KAAPA since Sec.2(p)(iii),which mandates that in order to include a person as "known rowdy" there should be at least three separate instances on which investigation or enquiry by a competent Police Officer or Authority on complaints initiated by persons other than Police officers not forming part of the same transaction is pending within seven years prior to the order of detention. Moreover we have also found that the Detaining Authority has not verified any documents to show that after Ext.P14 the detenu has been released from jail by any competent Court. If a release has been effected, necessarily the conditions W.P.(Crl).312/2020 imposed on release had to be verified by the Detaining Authority. So there is absolute non- application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in passing the impugned order.