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
7 paragraphs · 326 wordsShoba Annamma Eapen, J
The father 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 detention order was passed against the detenu on 31.10.2023. Six cases were considered for initiating preventive action against him, which include offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO). The last prejudicial activity was on 06.06.2023, in which he was granted bail on 03.08.2023. It is thereafter, the detention order was passed on 31.10.2023. In the last four years, he has been involved in five criminal cases, which include a POCSO case and crimes against women.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the final report was filed in the last prejudicial activity only on 02.07.2023 and hence, there is delay in passing Ext.P1 detention order.
Learned Government Pleader submitted that even after obtaining bail on conditions, the detenu continued to indulge in criminal activities; and hence, in order to ensure public peace and tranquility and to prevent his unlawful and public threat causing activities, the detention order was issued.
Out of the six crimes committed by the detenu, four were against women and one was against a minor girl. The detenu had obtained bail in the crimes registered against him and thereafter, committed further crimes, which itself shows that the bail conditions are not sufficient to prevent his activities. But, absolutely no reason has been stated in the detention order for the delay in passing the same, for reasons best known to them. The live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped. Hence, we are of the opinion that Ext.P1 detention order warrants interference.
Therefore, the WP(Crl) is allowed. The impugned Ext.P1 order is set aside and the concerned prison authorities are directed to release the detenu forthwith, if his further detention is not otherwise required under law.