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 · 208 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The wife of the detenu is before us.
This is the second detention order. The last prejudicial activity was on 03.07.2023. The detenu is the first accused therein. We note the nature of commission of offence. It is to be noted that when a second detention order is passed, though it may be justifiable to invoke the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, in the light of the nature of the crime registered, the detention officer will have to apply his mind as to the imposition of maximum period of detention. However, there was no application of mind in regard to the imposition of maximum period of detention.
We also note that the detention order was passed only on 03.10.2023. There is a delay of three months from the date of last prejudicial activity and the date on which the detention order has been passed. The delay has not been properly explained. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned detention order has to be set aside.
Accordingly, the WP(Crl) is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if his further detention is not otherwise required under law.