Ayishabi Thcharakkunnummal vs State Of Kerala

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu is 23 years old. He has been detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. He is involved in 6 crimes. They are Crime Nos.161/2022, 743/2023 and 344/2023 of Cherpulassery Police Station, Crime No.405/2023 of Puthucadu Police Station, Crime No.750/2023 of Manjeri Police Station, Crime No.1051/2022 of Ollur Police Station.

The last prejudicial activity was on 13.10.2023. The detenu was arrested on 04.01.2024 and he was ordered to be released on bail on 09.04.2024. The detention order was passed on 30.03.2024.The detention order was executed on 05.04.2024.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a considerable delay in passing the detention order. The total delay is 5 months and 16 days. It is submitted that absolutely no reason was assigned in the impugned order as the reason for the delay.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that reasons are assigned and it was due to administrative exigencies, Sponsoring Authority could not file a report within time.

It is to be noted that some of the cases are under investigation. We also note the reason assigned for the delay, it is stated that due to large number of applications were received in relation to Nava Kerala Sabha, the Police could not submit report within time. It is to be noted that administrative exigencies of the department not related to the collection of reports related to the person to be detained, cannot be an excuse for passing an order at a belated stage. There must be a link between last prejudicial activity and date on which the detention order is passed. The purpose of detention order is to prevent commission of offence, if it is found that the person against whom the detention order is passed has a proclivity or tendency to repeat the commission of such offences. There should be a prompt action on the part of Sponsoring Authority to report such matter before the Detention Authority.

In this matter, we are of the view that there is a considerable delay between the last prejudicial activity and the date of submission of the report. Accordingly, we find the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped.

Thus, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the impugned order has to be set aside and we direct the prison authorities to release the detenu forthwith, if his custody is not otherwise required under law.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.