Simitha. A vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2025
It is further submitted that the live link between the
last prejudicial act and the order of detention will get snapped, as there is a delay
of four months and one day, for which no explanation is offered. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel that a perusal of the detention order reveals
that a rowdy history sheet was opened at the Mattancherry Police Station against
the detenu on 16.10.2024, and that on the same day, proceedings under Section
126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were also initiated. It was
without ascertaining whether such actions were sufficient to deter the detenu
from perpetrating any further offences that the proposal was submitted on the
very next day. Reliance is placed on the observations made by this Court in Archa
N. Raj. v. State of Kerala 1, and it is urged that the detaining authority is
required to apply its mind and state the reasons why opening of 'rowdy history
1
[2024 KHC 1432]
WP(CRL.) NO. 743 OF 2025 2025:KER:51921
6
sheet' and initiation of preventive measures under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. were
ineffective and initiation of further proceedings under the preventive detention
law was warranted. It is further submitted that the detenu was granted bail by
the learned Sessions Court, Ernakulam, on 12.11.2024, imposing stringent
conditions. Though the detaining authority was well aware of this aspect, the
authority did not peruse the bail order and ascertain whether the conditions
imposed were sufficient to deter the detenu from indulging in further prejudicial
activities. This displays serious non-application of mind. Finally, it is submitted
that a detention order was passed against one Thoufeek P.S., the co-accused in
Crime No. 485 of 2022 and Crime No. 522 of 2024 of the Fort Kochi Police
Station. The said detenu had approached this Court by filing WP(Crl.) No. 320 of
2025 and this Court by judgment dated 16.06.2025 set aside the detention order,
on the ground that the detaining authority failed to take note of the bail
conditions imposed by the jurisdictional court and without ascertaining whether
such conditions were sufficient to deter the further prejudicial activities of the
detenu. It is submitted that in view of the above judgment, the detention order is
liable to be set aside on that sole ground.