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
36 paragraphs · 384 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The petitioner challenges the detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The detenu is involved in the following five crimes;
Sl.
No.
Police Station
Crime No.
Offences
1
Angamali Police Station
1816/2019
U/s.326 IPC
2
Nedumbassery Police Station
671/2020
U/s.109, 450, 356 and 395 IPC
3
Angamali Police Station
1178/2020
323, 324, 294(b), 427, 506
and 34 IPC
4
Aluva West Police Station
60/2022
143, 144. 147, 148, 115,
201, 212, 427, 440. 458,
459, 460, 324, 326, 307,
120(b) r/w 149 IPC & Sec.25, and 27 of Arms Act.
5
Angamali Police Station
504/2023
U/s.341, 294(b), 506, 323,
324, 307, 326, 120B, 427 and 34 IPC
The last prejudicial activity in this case was on 21.06.2023. The detenu was in judicial custody from 26.06.2023. He was released on 09.11.2023. The preliminary report was submitted by the Station House Officer on 26.07.2023. Thereafter, further report was submitted on 09.10.2023. There was delay in submitting report before the Detention Authority for about 3 months and 19 days. The detention order was passed on 23.11.2023. The first offence was occurred in a private place while consuming liquor. The second crime was also occurred in a private place while playing cards.
Taking note of the above nature of the offences, we further note that delay has occurred on the part of the sponsoring authority in submitting the report. It is true that an attempt was made to explain the delay but we are not satisfied with the explanation for the delay. It is for the detention authority to consider the impact of judicial custody while passing the detention order by applying mind. The sponsoring authority is bound to report the matter immediately before the Detention Authority. The intention behind the law is to prevent recurrence of commission of offence. The delay on part of the sponsoring authority cannot be justified in this matter.
Having taken note of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, provided, if he is otherwise not required in any other case under law.
This W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above..