Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Anita Antony vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2022

Haseena P.T vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024

8. The next contention of the learned counsel is that in view of the initiation of proceedings under Section 107, there was no need to initiate proceedings under the KAAP Act. The records reveal that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannarkad had moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam requesting for initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr. P.C., and on its basis M.C No. 50/2024 has been initiated against the detenu. The detenu got involved in the last prejudicial act on 7.3.2024. The order reveals that the detaining authority was aware of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. As held in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others3, the relative scope of the two proceedings is different and independent. Proceedings under S.107, Cr. P.C, is in the nature of security for keeping peace and public tranquility, and the free movement of such a person is not curtailed at all. 107 proceedings is not an embargo to the initiation of proceedings under the KAAP Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Athulya vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2025

The learned Public Prosecutor would also refer to the judgment rendered by this Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others3, and it is submitted that the mere fact that the accused had diligently complied with the bail condition in the crimes he is involved, is no reason to hold that the initiation of proceedings under the KAAP Act is unwarranted. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the contention that there has been a long delay, and the live link is snapped cannot be therefore sustained.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Jenson vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2025

11.​ The next contention of the petitioner is that proceeding under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P)Act was not at all necessitated in this case, as a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. had already been initiated. This Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 KHC OnLine 455] has held that the relative scope of the two proceedings is different and independent. Proceedings under S.107 of the Cr. P.C, is in the nature of security for keeping peace and public tranquility, and the free movement of such a person is not curtailed at all. The power of externment under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act, on the other hand, allows an authorized officer to restrain an individual, identified as a "known goonda" or "known-rowdy" under the Act, from entering specified areas. This order can be issued if, after affording an opportunity of being heard, the officer is satisfied that the individual is engaging in, about to engage in, or likely to engage in anti-social activities. The affected ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ WP(Crl) No. 143/2025 11​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:35030 person must meet the criteria for a Known goonda or Known rowdy, and the officer must satisfy himself, objectively and subjectively, that restrictions are necessary to prevent further anti-social activities as defined under section 2(a) of the KAAP Act. In other words, Section 107 proceedings under the Cr.P.C. and the provisions under the KAAP Act operate in different spheres. At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that in a case where it is possible to prevent the petitioner from continuing his anti-social activity by methods other than his preventive detention or externment, the authorities are bound to adopt those methods rather than depriving his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was therefore that this court as well as the Apex Court have held that in cases where proceedings such as those under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C are initiated, the authorities should consider whether, in spite of the initiation of such proceedings it is necessary to preventively detain or extern the person concerned and that on such examination if the authorities are satisfied that detention or externment is necessary, it is open to the authorities to validly do so.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P B Kumar - Full Document

Simitha. A vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2025

6.​ In response, Sri K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the detention order was served on the detenu in both English and Malayalam, along with a complete set of the proposal, which the detenu duly WP(CRL.) NO. 743 OF 2025​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:51921 7 acknowledged. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.2, and it was argued that proceedings under 107 of the Cr.P.C. are in the nature of security for keeping peace and public tranquility and is not an alternative to a proceeding under Section 3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAA(P) Act' for the sake of brevity). It is submitted that the very same principles would be applicable in the case on hand. Insofar as the conditions in the bail order is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the detaining authority took note of the involvement of the detenu in three cases, involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and five other cases under the IPC, and was of the view that the stringent conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Court in the earlier crimes did not deter the detenu from indulging in crimes one after the other. It is submitted that the detenu is a person who gives scant respect to the bail conditions and is a repeat offender.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Nibha N B vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025

​ 9.​ Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors.1, and it was argued that proceedings under 107 of the Cr.P.C. are in the nature of security for keeping peace and public tranquility and are not an alternative to a proceeding under Section 3 of the KAA(P) Act. It is submitted that the very same principles would be applicable in the case on hand.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Jafar Ali vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2025

9. The next contention of the petitioner is that proceeding under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P)Act was not at all necessitated in this case, as a proceeding under Section 126 of BNSS had already been initiated. This Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 KHC OnLine 455] has held that the relative scope of the two proceedings is different and independent. Proceedings under WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 8 ::
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document

Praveen @Poocha Praveen vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025

10. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as he had already executed a bond under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., a proceeding under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P)Act was not at all necessitated in this case. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted that this Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 KHC OnLine 455] has held that the relative scope of the two proceedings is different and independent.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document

Remani P.D vs State Of Kerala, Rep By Additional Chief ... on 12 April, 2023

Incorporating the factum of filing of final report, as also the release of the detenu on bail, the Sponsoring Authority preferred a second report to the District Magistrate on 3.10.2022. After considering all factual aspects in detail, Ext.P1 order was passed on 4.11.2022. According to the learned Government Pleader, the above narrated incidents would explain the delay of three months and twenty seven days. The decision of this Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (4) KHC 427] was relied upon by the learned Government Pleader to contend that a delay to the extent of 195 days has been held to have not vitiated the detention order, wherefore, the instant delay of 117 days is also liable to be condoned.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

Jino vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2024

While passing the order, the competent authority has taken note of the application for cancellation of bail pending before the jurisdictional court and also the immediate need to prevent the petitioner from indulging in further anti-social activities. We are also unable to accept the contention that the execution of bond in the proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Cr. P.C would have sufficed to prevent the petitioner from committing further prejudicial activities. Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. speaks about the power of an Executive Magistrate to require a habitual offender to furnish security to keep good behavior. As held in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others1, the relative scope of the two proceedings is different and independent. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr. P.C is in the nature of security for keeping peace and public tranquility, and the free movement of 1 [2022 KHC OnLine 455] WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :7: 2024:KER:69894 such a person is not curtailed at all. Proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. are not an embargo to the initiation of proceedings under the KAAP Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document
1   2 Next