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
6 paragraphs · 269 wordsS.Manu, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the detention of his son Anvar Hussain pursuant to Ext.P1 order. The detenu has been detained invoking the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). The detention order was issued on 02.04.2024 and the detenu has been detained from the date of order.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last prejudicial activity attributed against the detenu was on 02.11.2023 and the order of detention was issued on 02.04.2024. The precise contention raised is that there is unreasonable delay between the last prejudicial activity and the date of detention. Therefore, the submission is that the delay has resulted in snapping the live-link between the prejudicial activity and the decision to invoke the provisions of the KAAPA against the detenu is bad.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused Ext.P1 order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
We do not find any reason given in the impugned order for the time gap of about 5 months between the last prejudicial activity and the issuance of the order of detention. No argument has been advanced to justify the same. Therefore, we find merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. We hence set aside Ext.P1 order. The detenu shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other proceedings. The order shall be communicated immediately to the Superintendent of the Central Prison concerned.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.