Petitioner challenged a detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The court dismissed the petition, holding that explained delay was not decisive and judicial custody periods cannot be claimed as set-off, though they are relevant factors.
Impugned detention order set aside; detention dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(Crl.).No.30/2024
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(CRL.) NO.30OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
SUCHITHRA V.S
AGED 38 YEARS
D/O VIKRAMAN, ARAPURA VEEDU, TC 9/1192, MLR-61,
SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
CIYA E.J.
RESPONDENT/S:
1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
W.P.(Crl.).No.30/2024
-:2:-
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 6950433 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,, PIN - 6950334 THE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 6820265 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, PIN - 670004 BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28) SHRI K.A.ANASTHIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2024, THE COURT ON 05.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.).No.30/2024
-:3:-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
W.P.(Crl).No.30/2024
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2024
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner is the friend of the detenu. She challenges
detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short “KAA(P)A”). The detenu is
detained on consideration of following cases:
| Sl.No. | Police Station | Crime No. and Section |
Date of Occurrence |
Court No. and Court Name/ Present Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kadinamkulam | 106/2023 U/s.27 of Arms Act |
28/1/2023 | CC 275/2023, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal |
| 2. | Thiruvananthapuram Cyber Police |
20/2023 U/s.153, 294(b), 504 of IPC & 67 of IT Act |
10/7/2023 | Under Investigation |
| 3 | Thumba | 747/2023 U/s.458, 506 of IPC |
Last week of June 2023 |
Under Investigation |
| 4 | Kazhakkoottam | 1078/2023 U/s.22(c), 29, 20(b)(ii)A of NDPS Act |
26/7/2023 | Under Investigation |
W.P.(Crl.).No.30/2024
-:4:-
26/7/2023. Detention order was passed on 20/11/2023. Detention
order was executed on 23/11/2023. The detenu was arrested on
8/8/2023 in connection with the last prejudicial activity and he
was in judicial custody when the detention order was passed. The
sponsoring authority submitted its initial report on 5/9/2023 and
thereafter, another report was submitted on 27/10/2023. The delay
was explained in the detention order as it was found that additional
report was required to obtain further information to pass the
detention order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there was a total lack of application of mind as to the binding
nature of Section 10(4) of KAA(P)A. According to the learned
counsel, judicial custody has to be adverted while passing the
detention order and further elaborating the arguments he submitted
that the object of the detention order is to prevent recurrence of
the offence. Judicial custody after the last prejudicial activity
is a relevant factor to decide on the period of
W.P.(Crl.).No.30/2024
-:5:-
detention. Therefore, because of non application of mind, the
impugned order has to be set aside. The learned counsel also
relied on the period of delay involved in passing the detention
order.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed to the earlier
detention order and submitted that after the earlier detention
order, the detenu committed four crimes as above.
5. We note that the delay has been explained in the
matter. If the sponsoring authority took a prompt action which is
followed by the detention order, any delay in the matter is not
decisive unless it reflects snapping of live-link between the last
prejudicial activity and the date of detention. The crimes
committed fall under different jurisdictional police
stations. Therefore, obtaining inputs from all such cases might
require some time. We also are not able to accept the argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to non-application
of mind under Section 10(4) as to the period of detention. The
period covered under judicial custody cannot be claimed as a set
off for the purpose of detention order. The purpose of detention
W.P.(Crl.).No.30/2024
-:6:-
order is related to future behaviour of a person based on his past
conduct. It is to secure his future, based on public order, the
detention order is passed. Therefore, like in a penal law, the
period covered by judicial custody cannot be claimed for a
setoff. No doubt, the period covered by judicial custody has to
be reckoned as a relevant factor to decide whether a detention
order is required to be issued or not. We are therefore of the
view that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ
petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE
ms
W.P.(Crl.).No.30/2024
-:7:-
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 30/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCTVM/10408/2023-S13 DATED 20.11.2023 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2023 IN
CRL. M.P.NO. 5422/2023 IN CRIME NO.
1078/2022 OF KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in passing the detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 warrants quashing?
Whether the period covered by judicial custody can be claimed as a set-off for the purpose of a detention order under Section 10(4) of the KAA(P)A?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUCHITHRA V.S
STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL
THE CHAIRMAN ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court