Disposed

Sarith K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Feb 2024WP(Crl.)/182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought habeas relief against her husband's preventive detention under the KAAPA Act. The court found the stale prejudicial activities and settled last offence could not ground a detention order, set it aside and ordered his release.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order set aside; prison authorities directed to release the detenu forthwith if detention is not otherwise required under law.

Sarith K Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO. 182 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SARITH K
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O SAJITH M.A, METHODY HOUSE, THOTTUPALAM, ERIMAYUR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678546

¶8

BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
CIYA E.J.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 678546

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001

¶13

4 THE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,, PIN - 682026

¶14

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, PIN - 670004 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOr, ADV. K.A.ANAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(CRL.) NO. 182 OF 2024

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2024

¶19

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE(J)

¶20

This writ of habeas was filed by the wife of detenu. The last prejudicial activity of the detenu was on 08.03.2023. All other previous crimes occurred two years ago. The last crime was settled between the parties and this Court quashed the proceedings vide Ext.P2 judgment dated 05.05.2023 in Crl.M.C.No.2876 of 2023. The settlement allowed by this Court would show that, it was a dispute in the nature of offence that can be compounded and not in the nature of affecting larger public order. Based on the last prejudicial activity, the detention order could not have been passed. We also note that, all other crimes were registered two years ago. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and we direct the prison authorities to release the detenu forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required under law.

¶21

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

 Sd/-
 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶23

 Sd/-

¶24

 SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE

¶25

RK

¶26

WP(CRL.) NO. 182 OF 2024

¶27

¶28

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 182/2024

¶29

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DCPKD/9422/
2023/S1 DATED 01.09.2023 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P2A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.05.2023 IN CRL. M.C.NO.2876/2023 OF
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit -P3A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.
(RT).NO.3260/2023/ HOME DATED
10.11.2023

Sarith K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarith K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala, Vs Aneesh Francis

Ida Sarojam Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kadeer Churian Parambil Vs Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk

G Nxt Power Corp Vs Union of India

Sudha M T Vs Meghshree, the Director,Scheduled Tribes Development Department

Rajesh Km , Vs the Deputy Commissioner