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
5 paragraphs · 139 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J
This habeas was filed by the wife of the detenu. The detenu has involved in three crimes. The last two crimes committed by the detenu, formed part of the same transaction.
As seen from Section 2(p) III of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, in order to treat a person as a “known rowdy”, there must be atleast three separate instances and not forming part of the same transaction to have committed any offence by that person.
In view of the fact that here, the last two offences committed by the detenu were forming part of same transaction, the order of detention is legally unsustainable and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not otherwise required under law.
The Writ Petition Criminal is disposed of.