Kumaran vs The District Collector on 17 September, 2015
In Abidha Beevi v. State of
Kerala (2013(1) KLT 286) also, there was unexplained delay
of 4= months and the counter affidavits did not contain any
explanation for the delay.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.97 seconds)Documents citing
Abidha Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2012
Kumaran vs The District Collector on 17 September, 2015
In Abidha Beevi v. State of
Kerala (2013(1) KLT 286) also, there was unexplained delay
of 4= months and the counter affidavits did not contain any
explanation for the delay.
M. P. Hassainar Haji vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2023
3. The detenu is accused in four cases, of which
R.P. No.850 of 2023 3
in
W.P.(Crl) No.572 of 2023
three are registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act) and one under the Indian
Penal Code (the IPC). Though the detenu was enlarged on bail
in the first two cases, he could not get bail in the remaining
cases. The second case in the sequence namely, Crime No.1404
of 2022 of Hosdurg Police Station is the one registered for
offences punishable under the IPC. The detenu was enlarged on
bail in the said case subject to conditions that he shall not get
himself involved in any other offence and that if he violates the
said condition, it would result in the cancellation of his bail.
Despite the conditions aforesaid, the detenu got himself
involved in the last two cases, and an application has,
therefore, been filed by the investigating officer in Crime
No.1404 of 2022 for cancellation of the bail granted to the
detenu. Thereafter, a report was also submitted by the Station
House Officer, Hosdurg before the competent authority for
initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 107
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). The contention of
R.P. No.850 of 2023 4
in
W.P.(Crl) No.572 of 2023
the petitioner in the writ petition(Crl) was that Exts.P8 and P11
orders were issued without considering the question whether
the proceedings under the ordinary law of land namely the
proceedings for cancellation of bail and the proceedings under
Section 107 of the Code, are sufficient to keep the detenu
under check and control. The petitioner relied on the decisions
of this Court in Mohanan v. State of Kerala, 2014 KHC 3501 and
in Abidha Beevi v. State of Kerala, 2013 (1) KHC 308, in support
of the said contention.
Rappayi vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2014
In Abidha Beevi's case (2013 (1) KLT 286),
the proceedings against the detenu were initiated under
Section 107 Cr.P.C on 23/05/2012. The last anti-social
activity allegedly committed by the detenu was on
06/02/2012, much prior to the initiation of the proceedings
under Section 107 Cr.P.C. In the present case, proceedings
were initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the
year 2013 and as per the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, the detenu executed the bond on 09/03/2013 for
keeping peace for a period of one year. The period of the
bond expired on 09/03/2014. Crime No.963 of 2014 was
registered at Ollur Police Station against the detenu in
respect of the occurrence on 05/05/2014, much after the
expiry of the period of the bond executed under Section 107
Cr.P.C. In the order of detention, it is specifically stated that
W.P.(Crl.) No.505 of 2014 -18-
even after initiation of proceedings under Section 107
Cr.P.C, the detenu did not mend his ways and he indulged in
activities disturbing the peace and tranquility and involved
in anti-social activities. The order of detention also mentions
about the registration of Crime No.963 of 2014 and the
necessity of detaining the son of the petitioner under the Act
in order to prevent him from committing any anti-social
activity and to protect the life and properties of the general
public.
Nirmala Soman vs State Of Kerala
49), after holding that "mere delay in passing the detention
order after the last prejudicial activity alone is not a
sufficient ground for vitiating the order of detention
provided the delay is satisfactorily explained by the
authorities concerned", the Division Bench held that when
the maximum period for which a person can be detained is
determined to be six months, a delay of four months in
passing the detention order after the last anti social activity
can only be considered as an inordinate delay. It was also
found that no explanation was given for the delay either in
the detention order or in the counter affidavit filed by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, it would vitiate the
W.P.(Crl.) 275/2015
-: 17 :-
detention order. A similar view was taken by the same
Division Bench in Abida Beevi v. State of Kerala (2013
(1) KHC 308).
Rahila Nazeer vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2015
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the last prejudicial activity alleged against the detenu
was on 17.02.2015 and the order of detention was issued
only on 17.08.2015, six months after the last prejudicial
activity. The learned counsel submitted that the period for
which a person can be detained under the KAA(P) Act is six
months and if an order of detention is passed after the
expiry of six months from the date of the last prejudicial
activity, it has to be taken that the live link between the
prejudicial activity and the order of detention was snapped.
The learned counsel relied on two decisions of this Court in
W.P.(Crl.) No.493 of 2015
5
Abidha Beevi v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 286] and
Jimesh Jose v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 447]. In
these decisions the same Division Bench held that the cause
for the delay between the date of last prejudicial activity
and the date of passing the detention order was not
explained. The respondents did not give any satisfactory
explanation for the delay in the counter affidavit as well.
The delay remained unexplained. Even then the Division
Bench cautioned that "mere delay in passing the detention
order after the last prejudicial activity alone is not a
sufficient ground for vitiating the order of detention
provided the delay is satisfactorily explained by the
authorities concerned".
Abdul Samad vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2013
In support of this
contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Abidha Beevi v. State of
Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 286].
Sandhya vs Stateof Kerala on 1 April, 2014
6. Law seems to be settled that in spite of the pendency of
proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., a detenu can still be
preventively detained under the Act. However, to detain such a
person, it is necessary that the sponsoring authority should make
available to the detaining authority, the records relating to the
proceedings concerned. Thereupon, the detaining authority on his
part is duty bound to pointedly consider the question as to whether
the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. are sufficient to
prevent the detenu from continuing the anti social activities and if
he is satisfied that such proceedings are insufficient, he is entitled
to order detention of the detenu. This position has been clarified
by this Court in Susi v. State of Kerala (2011(1)KLT 760), Manju
v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 150), Rekha Gopakumar v.
State of Kerala (2012(4) KLT 990) and Abidha Beevi v. State
of Kerala (2013(1) KLT 286).
Muhammed Naseem vs Inspector General Of Police
5. But, the impugned order discloses that proceeding
under Section 107 Cr.P.C was initiated against the petitioner
and that it did not conclude either way. May be that, the
authorities relevant for that provision are of the view that
such proceeding may be futile, in its ultimate analysis. But,
we see that Ext.P1 does not contain any finding that the
proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C is insufficient to deal
with the petitioner. On the face of the non-consideration of
W. P. (C) No.17854 of 2014 -3-
the question as to whether proceeding under Section 107
Cr.P.C, which was already initiated, was sufficient or not,
applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in Abidha
Beevi v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 286], the
impugned Ext.P1 order may warrant interference.
Fousiya N vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 9 September, 2015
"10. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the last prejudicial activity alleged
against the detenu was on 17.02.2015 and the order
W.P.(Crl) No.494/2015 5
of detention was issued only on 17.08.2015, six
months after the last prejudicial activity. The learned
counsel submitted that the period for which a person
can be detained under the KAA(P) Act is six months
and if an order of detention is passed after the expiry
of six months from the date of the last prejudicial
activity, it has to be taken that the live link between
the prejudicial activity and the order of detention was
snapped. The learned counsel relied on two
decisions of this Court in Abidha Beevi v. State of
Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 286] and Jimesh Jose v.
State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 447]. In these
decisions the same Division Bench held that the
cause for the delay between the date of last
prejudicial activity and the date of passing the
detention order was not explained. The respondents
did not give any satisfactory explanation for the delay
in the counter affidavit as well. The delay remained
unexplained. Even then the Division Bench cautioned
that "mere delay in passing the detention order after
the last prejudicial activity alone is not a sufficient
ground for vitiating the order of detention provided
the delay is satisfactorily explained by the authorities
concerned".