Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Simitha. A vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2025 cites

Anita Antony vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2022

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 2 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Archana Raj vs State Of Kerala

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.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document
1   2 Next