AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 351 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu is involved in several crimes. Six crimes were taken into account for passing the detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short, KAA(P) Act). The last prejudicial activity was on 15.06.2023. The crime was registered at Eloor Police Station. All the crimes against the detenu were registered at Kalamasseri, Eloor and Aluva Police Stations within the jurisdiction of the sponsoring authority.
The detention order was passed on 25.09.2023. The sponsoring authority submitted its report only on 11.08.2023. The additional report was submitted on 12.09.2023. The sponsoring authority's report was submitted admittedly after two months. It is after the submission of the report by the sponsoring authority, the additional report was sought. It was submitted on 12.09.2023. The additional report was sought for the purpose of obtaining the details of other crimes.
Absolutely, there is no explanation as to the delay involved on the part of the sponsoring authority to report before the detention authority after the last prejudicial activity. The sponsoring authority must be prompt to report and initiate action under the KAA(P) Act. The purpose of the detention order is to prevent repetition of the commission of the offences. It cannot be used as a penal measure to penalise a person who is involved in crimes. If there is a delay in taking steps to initiate action, it has to be assumed that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order is snapped. It is to be noted that more than three months have lapsed to pass the detention order. Though the detention authority has reasons for the delay in passing the order, the sponsoring has not placed any genuine valid reasons before the detention authority for submitting the report after two months. In such circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, provided, if he is not otherwise required under law for any other case.
The original petition is disposed of as above.