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 · 376 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The petitioner challenges the detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The detenu named Harikrishnan @ Kichu is involved in four crimes. The last crime was committed on 13.01.2024. In that crime, he was arrayed as second accused. The detention order was passed on 18.04.2024. The previous crime was committed in the year 2022. The nature of the allegations in the last crime shows that the activity involved by detenu may attract vitiating the elements of law and order and not a public order. The cumulative effect of all the offences will have to be taken into consideration to hold that whether it vitiate public order or not. However, we find in previous crimes no overt act has been attributed to the detenu in the First Information Report. Such being the case the last crime will have to be taken in isolation to find out whether it amount to vitiating the public order or not. We also note that earlier order of detention was also revoked by the Government. When these four cases are examined, we do not out any reason to hold that the activities of the detenu could vitiate public order. Absolutely, there was no application of mind while passing the detention order.
Apart from the above reason, we also find that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order for the delay occasionally passed. The last crime was committed on 13.01.2024. The detention order was passed on 18.04.2024. If the last crime was in such nature, prompt action ought to have been initiated under the KAAPA to detain the detenu. The delay had frustrated the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the date of passing the detention order. We, therefore, find that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped. In toto, we are of the view that there was no application of mind while passing the detention order.
In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, provided, if he is otherwise not required in any other case under law.
This W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above.