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
10 paragraphs · 312 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the mother of the detenu. The detenu is detained under Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007(for short “KAAPA Act”). Three cases were registered against him, they are:
Sl. No. Crime No. Police Station Offence
1 922/2017 Mattanur 341, 323, 324, 427, 308 r/w 34.
2 84/2023 Mattanur 341 and 323 3 606/2023 Mattanur 323,
308 r/w 34 and Sec.4 r/w 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act.
All those cases were considered in the order of detention.
Among the cases, one case was registered in the year 2017. The last prejudicial activity was on 9.06.2023. The detention order was passed on 15.07.2023 and the same was executed on 21.07.2023. At the time of detention order, the detenu was under judicial custody. Admittedly, the detenu has been released on bail.
Having adverted to the nature of offences and noting that the detenu had involved in two cases in the year 2023 and he also secured bail in all these cases, we are of the view that the offences alleged against him as such warrant invocation of provisions of KAAPA Act on the ground of public order. It is to be noted that sponsoring authority has every right to oppose bail citing the public order, in the light of the detention order passed under the KAAPA Act. Merely because detenu is released on bail, it will not entail in the illegality of the order passed under the KAAPA Act, but nevertheless, granting of such bail would indicate that such person is not a menace or threat to society at large and his presence will not vitiate the public order.
In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we quash the order of detention and direct the concerned prison authorities to release the detenu forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required.