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
3 paragraphs · 354 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque,J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The petitioner challenges the detention order passed under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, (for short, KAA(P) Act). The last prejudicial activity was occurred on 18.03.2023. The detenu was arrested on 31.03.2023 and he was released on bail on 02.05.2023. The sponsoring authority submitted its report only on 12.06.2023. Thereafter, the detention authority passed an order of detention only on 19.08.2023. The delay was explained in general terms as usual stating that it was occasioned to collect the materials against the detenu. It is to be noted that the sponsoring authority was well aware of the commission of the last offence on 18.03.2023. The sponsoring authority took nearly three months to submit its first report. That means, the sponsoring authority took steps only after the detenu was released on bail on 02.05.2023. The last prejudicial activity demands an action under the KAA(P) Act, and nothing prevents the sponsoring authority from taking immediate action after the commission of the offence to submit report before the detention authority. Mere citing that the delay was occasioned due to collection of materials cannot be accepted as valid reasons to hold that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and detention order has not been snapped. The very purpose of the KAA(P) Act is to sub-serve the public interest to protect society from repeated commission of the offence by the detenu. Such a long delay in submitting the report by the sponsoring authority would defeat the purpose of KAA(P) Act. It is not intended to be used as a penal measure but rather intends to use as a preventive measure. That being the case, absolutely there was no reason for the sponsoring authority to submit its report nearly after three months after the commission of the offence. We hold that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The detenu is at liberty, provided, if it is not required under law for any other case.
The writ petition(criminal) is disposed of as above.