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
69 paragraphs · 1,103 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These matters are filed challenging the detention order.
It is appropriate to refer chronology of events leading to detention order.
WP(Crl).No.512/2023:
Date of last prejudicial activity :14.02.2023
Report to initiate KAAPA proceedings :25.02.2023
Order of detention :27.02.2023
Date of execution of detention :27.02.2023
Order of detention U/s 3(3) approved by govt :10.03.2023
Govt confirmed detention order :05/05/2023
U/s 10(4) for period of 6 months
WP(Crl).No.515/2023:
Date of commission of last prejudicial activity :14.02.2023
District police chief report to district magistrate :25.02.2023
(report regarding involvement of criminal cases from 2016 to 2023)
Order of detention :27.02.2023
Order of detention approved by government :10.03.2023
Case of detenue referred to Advisory Board :15.02.2023
Report of Advisory Board :19.04.2023
Order of Addl Chief Secretary to Government Intimation of confirmation of order of detention
u/s 10(4) for a period of 6 months :05.05.2023
It is also appropriate to refer the crime in which detenue isinvolved:
WP(Crl).No.512/2023
DATE OF CRIME
FIR NO
OFFENCE
26.03.2016
464/16
U/S 341,323,324,308 r/w 34 IPC
18.02.2016
933/2016
U/s 506 IPC
23.01.2017
30/17
U/s 341,323,326,308,506 r/w 34 IPC
14.02.2023
147/23
u/s354A(i),354A(ii),354(i),(iv),354 D, 506,294(b)IPC, 67 IT Act and sec 120(o) of Kerala Police Act
WP(Crl).No.515/2023
Date
crime no
Offence
03.09.2016
151/16
U/S 143,147,148,302 r/w 149 IPC ,3&5 of ES act
23.01.2017
30/17
u/s 341,323,326,308,506r/w 149 IPC
12.02.2018
202/2018
U/S 447,341,342,326,307,302,102(B),109,201r/w 34 IPC,3&5 of ES
Act sec 4 R/W 25(1-B)(b) of Arms act
14.02.2023
211/23
u/s 153,294(b)506 IPC
14.02.2023
147/23
u/s 354A(i),354A(ii),354 D, 506,294(b)IPC, 67 IT Act and sec
120(o) of Kerala Police Act
A common crime is registered in both the cases. Crime No.147/2023 registered by Muzhakkunnu Police Station. This crime has been cited as the last prejudicial activity. Grounds of challenge raised in both the cases are common. Pointing out to the bail conditions imposed in some other cases and absence of bail conditions as to prevention of commission of crime during the period on bail, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel Shri K.K.Deerendrakrishnan appearing for the petitioners in both the cases that the authority failed to apply its mind while passing the order. It was also argued that, in an unusual way, the copy of the confirmation order was addressed to the Chief Minister of the State. The case of the petitioners is that the detenue acted against the present leadership of the Communist party and that resulted in invoking proceedings under the KAA(P)A. it was also argued that there was a long delay in passing the order after the last prejudicial activity. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments.
Reshma Raj v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 KHC 3304]
Shajitha Suneer v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (3) KHC 453]
Sreeja Jayaprakash v. District Collector/District Magistrate and Others [2019 KHC 2814]
The learned Government Pleader defending the order, submitted that the detenue was involved in many criminal cases and argued that subjective satisfaction arrived by the detention authority cannot be questioned when it is pointed out that the proximity of the detention order with the prejudicial activity is qua public order. He relied on the following judgments:
Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 (4) KHC 427]
Stenny Aleyamma Saju v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (3) KHC 517]
We examined the matter in detail. We find there is no delay involved in the matter to hold that livelink has been snapped. Last prejudicial activity was on 14/2/2023. Order of detention was passed on 27/2/2023. Thus, it cannot be said that the livelink has been snapped due to delay.
The next question to be considered is whether bail condition itself would safeguard the public order or not. Going by the nature of offence committed and the nature of involvement of the detenue, all that we can hold is that the activity of the detenue is prejudicial to the society and unless they are restrained by a detention order, recurrence of the commission of offence cannot be prevented. There is no hard and fast rule to hold that bail conditions would be sufficient to prevent a person from committing a crime. The object of enquiry under the KAA(P)A is to protect public order and to protect larger community interest. The detention order has to be viewed from the larger public interest of the society and not from the stand point of the individual whose liberty is subjected to process of detention. The balancing exercise has to be weighed on the scale of societal interest and liberty of the detenue, and not on the scale of bail condition and the liberty of the individual detenue. A co-ordinate bench has taken a similar view in Sreeja Jayaprakash's case (supra) that the failure on the part of the detaining authority in considering bail condition is fatal. It may be fatal in taking note of the nature of the crime committed and nature of the last prejudicial activity, but it cannot be said that it is a rule. If the detaining authority had adverted to the bail granted and crime in which the detenue are involvled, that would be sufficient, provided the activity of the detenue continues to be a threat in the larger interest of the society. It is the activity of the detenue in relation to the larger public interest that had to be weighed and not the bail condition and the order of detention. We will be missing to secure the very objective of the detention law, if we analyse the detention order from the perspective of bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenue. Each detention order has to be considered based on the facts involved in that case and the application of precedent will have to be limited based on the facts of such cases.
We are, therefore, of the view that the arguments that bail conditions are sufficient to safeguard the larger interest of public is not sustainable in the light of background of these cases against the detenue herein. On last argument that confirmation of detention order had been addressed to the Chief Minister and detention order was as a result of call out of the Communist party leadership, we are unable to accept this argument for the reason that the person against whom malafide is attributed is not in the party array. The detention order is otherwise perfectly legal and we find no reason to interfere with that order. We find no merit in this matter, the challenge fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.