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 · 204 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu involved in five crimes. One of the crimes alleging violation of externment order passed against him is under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short “KAAPA Act”).
We perused the allegations levelled against him. All allegations would qualify to pass an order under the KAAPA Act. However, we note that the last prejudicial activity was on 14.04.2023. The detention order was passed only on 19.09.2023. The objective behind the detention order is to prevent repetition of offences. If the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the date of detention order is snapped, the Court will have to interfere with the detention order. If the delay has not been explained, there should have been prompt action on the part of the sponsoring authority to report before the detention authority. The delay is fatal in this case.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and we do so. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty, provided, if he is not otherwise required in any other case under law.
This W.P.Crl. is disposed of as above.