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
39 paragraphs · 375 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The Writ Petition(Criminal) was filed by the mother of the detenu. The detenu is involved in the following crimes:
Sl.No.
Crime No.
Police Station
Offences involved under sections
1
554/2023
Nedupuzha
447, 294(b), 506(ii), 324, 201, 212,
308 r/w 34 IPC
2
833/2023
Cherppu
308 r/w 34 IPC
3
542/2023
Nedupuzha
341, 323, 324, 506, 394, 365 r/w
34 IPC
4
507/2023
Nedupuzha
448, 294(b), 427, 506(ii), r/w 34 IPC
5
14/2023
Ollur
341, 323 r/w 34 IPC
6
973/2022
Ollur
294(b), 506(i) IPC
7
772/2023
Ollur
212 IPC & Sec.16 of KAA(P) A Act
2007.
The last prejudicial activity was occurred on 20.07.2023. However, the crime was registered only on 05.08.2023. The detention order was passed on 23.11.2023, that means, after the lapse of four months and three days. The previous crime registered against him was on 16.07.2023. The detenu and the petitioner herein raised a complaint against the police on 01.08.2023.
We perused the nature of the allegations against the detenu in the crimes. It is true that all these cases speak about an action which would vitiate the law and order. On perusal of the cases, we are of the view that it will not vitiate the public order. The purpose of the detention order is to ensure the public order, keeping in mind the larger interest of the society. To protect the interest of the society, such a detention order is passed. If a person indulges in such activity, which would vitiate only law and order, the penal law alone is the remedy and not the provision under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 for detention. Further, in this case, we do not find anything that can be classified to hold that it would vitiate the public order. That apart the long delay in registering FIR in the last prejudicial activity and reckoning that delay in passing the detention order, we are of the view that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped. Thus we allow the writ petition(Criminal). The impugned order is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not otherwise required under law for any other purposes.