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
40 paragraphs · 410 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed by the mother of the detenu.
The detenu is involved in ten crimes. The details of the crimes, which are relied on by the detaining authority to pass the detention order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 2007 (for short, “the KAA(P)A”), are as follows;
Sl.
No.
FIR
Date of occurrence
1
319/2017 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station
13-05-17
2
320/2017 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station
13-05-17
3
671/2017 of Payyannur Police Station
12-07-17
4
672/2017 of Payyannur Police Station
12-07-17
5
673/2017 of Payyannur Police Station
11-07-17
6
674/2017 of Payyannur Police Station
11-07-17
7
675/2017 of Payyannur Police Station
11-07-17
8
676/2017 of Payyannur Police Station
12-07-17
9
677/2017 of Payyannur Police Station
12-07-17
10
1230/2023 of Payyannur Police Station
24-09-23
We note that out of the ten crimes, nine were committed in the year 2017. The first two crimes were part of same transaction; the second four cases were part of same transaction; and the last three cases also were part of same transaction, though happened in different locations. The last prejudicial activity was on 24.09.2023. The detention order was passed on 06.11.2023.
As seen from the last crime, the motive of the offence was related to political rivalry. We take note of the interval between the crimes spanning from 2017 to 2023. Though these crimes can be categorized for the purpose of invoking provisions under the KAA(P)A, the detaining authority remains oblivious as to the nature of the elements that would vitiate public order. Repetition of crimes and its recurrence, which cause threat to the society, alone would qualify to categorize an offence for the purpose of passing detention order invoking the provisions under the KAA(P)A. The authority is bound to apply mind as to the prospect of repetition of such crime taking note of his nature of conduct and criminal antecedents. Taking note of the fact that the last prejudicial activity was an isolated activity after several years, we are of the view that the authority failed to reckon the impact of such prejudicial activity on public order. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned detention order.
Accordingly, the WP(Crl) is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if his further detention is not otherwise required under law.