Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Radhika B vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2014

Aswathy vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2019

15. The further case of the petitioner is that all the crimes, except Crime No.751/2018 of Cantonment Police Station, were the basis of earlier detention order and it will be improper if not illegal, to base a further order on those crimes. This issue was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Radhika B. v. State of Kerala and others [2015 (2) KLT 134], wherein it was held that the prejudicial activities which were reckoned for the purpose of an earlier detention order can nevertheless be counted, providing the live link to issue another order of detention against the same person. In the present case, it has to be noted that after release from the last detention, the detenu committed further offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 308, 394, 451, 341, 354 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. In the circumstances, consideration of crimes, which were basis of earlier detention orders, cannot be said to be illegal or improper.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Binoy @ Gillappi vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2016

12. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that Crime No.719/2011 was earlier considered by the detaining authority so as to pass a detention order against him on an earlier occasion i.e. on 27.1.2011, but the same was set aside by this Court in the petition filed by him as W.P.(Crl) 153/2017. But in Radhika B. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2015(2) KHC 183] a Full Bench of this Court has held that revocation of an order of detention does not take away the prior prejudicial acts of the detenu, that were counted for prior detention from being counted again to impose another order of detention. Applying the said declaration of law no defect could be attributed against the authority in accepting Crime No.719/2011 again by the authority to pass the order of detention.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V Shircy - Full Document

Aaliya Ashraf vs State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2024

13. As held in Radhika (supra), when the same individual engages in prejudicial activities after the expiry or revocation of an earlier detention order, these later actions create a continuous, "live link" with the prior activities. This link remains active, even if the initial prejudicial acts alone would not have justified a detention order at the time. This principle allows authorities to initiate steps to detain habitual offenders who continue to pose a threat, provided all legal requirements are satisfied. In other words, when subsequent prejudicial conduct follows earlier actions, the combined pattern of behavior forms a sequence of potent acts that support a continuous live link, justifying another detention order. If the competent authority is satisfied that another detention order is necessary, taking into account any or all of the previous and recent prejudicial activities, such an order cannot be held objectionable.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document
1