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 · 371 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the father of the detenu. The detenu is involved in five crimes from the year 2019 to 2023. The last crime was registered on 10.03.2023 and he was arrested on 18.03.2023. He was released on bail on 10.04.2023. The sponsoring authority filed report only on 12.05.2023 to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The authority sought further report and that was made available only on 19.06.2023. The detention order was passed on 11.07.2023 and the same was executed on 17.07.2023.
Though the learned Public Prosecutor sought time to file a counter affidavit, we are not inclined to grant time for the simple reason that five months have already elapsed after detention, though the habeas corpus was filed belatedly. We note that there is a considerable delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in submitting the report. The delay was noted in the detention order itself. However, it is stated that time was required to collect the entire details from the year 2019 onwards from different courts.
We note that all the crimes committed by the detenu are within the Kollam District. Altogether there are five cases and out of which three crimes were committed within the Ezhukone Police Station including the last crime. In that sense, there may not be much difficulty for the sponsoring authority to collect the entire details. The very objective of the detention order is to prevent commission of offences and to maintain public order. If there is a lapse of time from the last prejudicial activity till the passing of the detention order, it has to be held that the live-link has been snapped. As we noted that all the three crimes were committed within the Ezhukone Police Station, the sponsoring authority ought to have been vigilant enough to report the matter.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in this matter is fatal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required.
This W.P. Crl. is disposed of as above.