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 · 359 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely Sabari P.R, aged 21 years, an ordinary resident of Palakkad District. He has been detained by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Palakkad dated 23.02.2024. This is the second detention order. After the first detention order, he involved in three crimes. The last two crimes were registered on 6.09.2023 and on 07.09.2023. He was in judicial custody till he was released on bail on 20.10.2023. The Sponsoring Authority submitted its report on 31.10.2023. An additional report was submitted on 11.01.2024. The detaining authority passed the order of detention on 23.02.2024 and there is a delay of five months and eight days from the last prejudicial activity till passing the detention order.
Though an attempt was made to explain the delay in the impugned order, we are not satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay. Merely for the reason that an additional report was obtained only in the month of January, that cannot be an excuse for having an undue delay in passing the detention order. It seems that the Sponsoring Authority initiated proceedings under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 only after the release of the detenu based on the orders of the Magistrate Court granting him bail in the last prejudicial activity. There is no bar under law in initiating proceedings under the preventive laws immediately after the commission of offence by a person.
In the light of the past crimes committed and in the light of the fact that the detenu had already suffered a detention order, there would not have been any valid reason for the Sponsoring Authority as well as the Detaining Authority for the delay in initiating proceedings under the KAAPA Act against the detenu. Unreasonable delay would frustrate the very purpose of preventive laws. According to us, the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order is snapped. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and order release of the detenu forthwith, provided, if his custody is not otherwise required in any case under law.
This W.P.Crl. is disposed of as above.