Philomina George vs State Of Kerala

Shoba Annamma Eapen, J

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. She challenges an order of detention issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as, “KAA(P)A”].

The preventive detention proceedings under the KAA(P)A have been initiated against the detenu, considering the following cases;

Sl.

No.

Police Station

Date of occurrence

Crime No & Section

Status of case when detention order was issued

1

Fort Kochi

13.10.18

1642/2018

U/s 294(b), 506(i) IPC

Pending trial as CC 1687/2018

before JFMC-V, Mattancherry

2

Maradu

08.10.18

1758/2018

U/s 506(i) IPC

Pending trial as CC 1601/2019

before JFMC-VIII, Ernakulam

3

Hemambika Nagar

02.05.19

170/2019

U/s 341,

394, 395,

120(b) IPC

Pending trial as SC 601/2022 before Addl. District Sessions Court-V

4

Alappuzha North

07.06.22

647/2022 U/s 22(a), 29 of NDPS Act

Pending trial as CC 1054/2022 before JFMC-I, Alappuzha

5

Thrikkakara

14.01.23

82/2023

U/s 143,

147, 148,

323, 324,

326, 307

r/w 149 IPC

Under investigation

The last prejudicial activity was on 14.01.2023. The order of detention was passed on 15.06.2023. For passing the detention order, the detaining authority has taken into consideration the above five instances of antisocial activities.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no sufficient number of qualifying cases for keeping the detenu under preventive detention. It is further submitted that the approval order was not served on the detenu within the statutory period and also that, there was a delay of 152 days in passing the detention order from the date of the last prejudicial activity.

Learned Government Pleader submitted that after the commission of the last prejudicial activity on 14.01.2023, especially, after the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application on 20.04.2023, the detenu absconded. Thereafter, the sponsoring authority submitted recommendation on 30.04.2023 and preliminary report was submitted by the Station House Officer on 04.04.2023, pursuant to which the sponsoring authority submitted report on 02.05.2023 for initiating proceedings against the detenu under KAA(P)A. The detaining authority issued a notification dated 15.06.2023 under Section 6(1)(b) of the KAA(P)A and the detenu was arrested on 08.11.2023.

On a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that while the detenu was absconding, his field of operation was extended to Karnataka and Tamilnadu and it took time to locate him. The delay in passing the detention order occurred due to the aforesaid reasons and the authorities have properly explained the reasons for the delay in passing the detention order or in serving a copy of the order.

Out of the five cases considered for passing the detention order, four are pending trial and one is pending investigation. Two of the said crimes were committed in the year 2018, one in 2019, one in 2022 and one in 2023. It is to be noted that the crimes committed by the detenu also include offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While passing the detention order, the detaining authority considered all aspects including the gravity of the offences, which disturb the public order. Detenu, being a known gangster, was easily identifiable during the commission of offence. However, the delay has been properly explained by the detaining authority. The detenu was absconding and was arrested only on 08.11.2023. Simply because the detention order was passed on 15.06.2023 and the detenu was arrested only on 08.11.2023, it cannot be said that the detention order has lost its importance and purpose, for which it has been passed. The detention under KAA(P)A can be considered only when the detenu is arrested and taken into judicial custody. From 14.01.2023 till 08.11.2023, for about 10 months, the detenu was absconding. The offences alleged to be committed by the detenu are of serious nature. The detaining authority has passed the order taking into consideration all relevant aspects and on attaining subjective and objective satisfaction. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned detention order.

The WP(Crl) is accordingly dismissed.