Raji N vs State Of Kerala

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

This writ of habeas was filed by the wife of the detenu questioning the detention order. The detention order was passed on 09.10.2023. Four crimes were considered for passing the detention order. This is the second detention order, detaining the detenu for one year. All the cases considered for detention order were registered by Palode Police Station. The last prejudicial activity was on 24.05.2023. It is to be noted that the last prejudicial activity was related to illicit liquor, registered under the Abkari Act. It is alleged in the first information that he sped from the scene on seeing the police. The sponsoring authority submitted its report on 02.08.2023. There is a considerable delay in the matter on the part of the sponsoring authority to submit the report. The delay has not been properly explained. It is to be noted that all the cases which relied on passing the detention order have been registered by Palode Police Station. Therefore, there cannot be any reason for delay in obtaining information as to the offences in which the detenu were involved. The purpose of the detention order is to prevent the repetition of the commission of the offence. It is not to penalize a person. If the sponsoring authority is not alert and prompt in reporting the matter before the detention authority, the very purpose of the detention order will be defeated. If the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order is snapped, the detention order will have to be set aside. In this case, taking note of the fact that there was a considerable delay on the part of the sponsoring authority, we are of the view that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The detenu is set at liberty, provided, if he is not required under law for any other case.

The writ petition (criminal) is disposed of as above.