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
6 paragraphs · 213 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J
This writ of habeas corpus was filed by the wife of the detenu. The last prejudicial activity in this case was on 02.07.2023. Though he was granted bail in respect of the last crime on 19.09.2023, he was not released on bail and he was in custody for violation of externment order passed under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (For short “KAPPA Act”)
As we see from the records, the detenu continues to be in custody for more than six months after the last prejudicial activity. The very purpose of invoking provisions of the KAPPA Act is to ensure that the person concerned is prevented from repeating the commission of the offences. In this case, the sponsoring authority filed report only on 29.09.2023 and the detention order was passed only on
24.10.2023. There was a considerable delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in filing the report before the detaining authority.
Taking note of the over all circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and we do so. The detenu is set at liberty, provided, if his detention is not otherwise required under law.
This W.P. Crl. is disposed of as above.