Mini vs State Of Kerala

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J

The petitioner, mother of the detenu, has approached this Court challenging the order of detention issued under the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as, “the KAA(P)A”].

Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on 07.11.2023. Out of the nine crimes registered against the detenu,  eight  were  considered  for  passing  the  detention order, details of which are as follows;

Sl.

No.

FIR

Date of occurrence

1

513/2019 of Thrissur Town West Police Station u/s 379, 201 r/w 34 IPC and 198 MV Act

29.03.2019

2

151/2019 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 341, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC

28.02.2019

3

355/2019 of Peramangalam Police Station u/s 147, 143, 148, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii), 307, 302 r/w 149, 212 IPC and 27 Arms Act

24.04.2019

4

698/2019 of Peramangalam Police Station u/s 506(i), 385 r/w 34 IPC

30.07.2019

to 14.09.2019

5

799/2020 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506(i), 427 r/w 149 IPC

17.07.2020

6

315/2022 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 307, 332, 353, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC; 20(B)(ii)A NDPS Act; 27 Arms Act; and 3, 4 PDPP Act

18.04.2022

7

317/2022 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 457, 461, 380 r/w 34 IPC

19.04.2022

8

1043/2023 of Cherppu Police Station u/s 332, 307, 212 r/w 34 IPC

12.09.2023

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority while the detenu was in judicial custody from 13.09.2023 in connection with the last prejudicial activity. The last prejudicial activity was on 12.09.2023. It was further submitted that the de facto complainant in the said case was a police officer and the facts of the case are not in regard to any public order violation.

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, even after release on bail on earlier occasions, the detenu continued to involve in similar offences and was indulged in offences causing threat to the public at large and hence, to maintain law and order in the respective places, preventive detention of the detenu is necessary.

On a perusal of the offences committed, it is seen that the detenu was a threat to the public order and was involved in the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also. It is clear that it was considering the criminal antecedents and on attaining subjective and objective satisfaction, the detention order was passed against the detenu in order to safeguard the interest of the society.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that set-off has to be granted considering the period of judicial custody of the detenu. The said plea of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in Suchithra V.S. v. State of Kerala & Others [2024/KER/17738] [rendered by this Bench], wherein it has been held as follows;

“The period covered under judicial custody cannot be claimed as a set off for the purpose of detention order. The purpose of detention order is related to future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct. It is to secure his future, based on public order, the detention order is passed. Therefore, like in a penal law, the period covered by judicial custody cannot be claimed for a setoff.”

The delay occurred has been properly explained by the detaining authority in the detention order. The livelink between the date of last prejudicial activity and the date of passing the detention order has not been snapped or broken. The offences committed by the detenu are grievous in nature and the detention order is issued in order to ensure public peace and tranquility. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the matter.

Accordingly, the WP(Crl.) stands dismissed.