JUDGEMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS,J. -
(1.)The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, in regard to the
challenge against the order preventing and detaining the detenu in
this case under Sec.3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007, are as follows:
"i) A writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue forthwith in the interest of justice.
ii) Writ of certiorari calling for the entire records pertaining to Exhibit P-1 detention order and quash Exhibit P1 detention order as it ultravires constitution and is against law.
iii) Any other writ or order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit according to the facts and circumstances of the case."
(2.)Heard Sri.Liffy P.Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A.Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents.
(3.)In the instant case, brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: The petitioner is the brother of the
detenu involved in this case (Sri.Sinar, aged 26 years, S/o.Sulaiman)
who has been detained in terms of Ext.P-1 detention order dtd.
15/8/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent District Magistrate/District Collector, Ernakulam (authorized detaining authority) under Sec.3(1)
of the above Act. According to the respondents, Ext.P-1 detention
order has been forthwith communicated by the 2nd respondent to the
1 st respondent State Government along with all relevant records.
Thereafter, Ext.P-1 detention order has been executed with the arrest
and actual detention of the detenu on 17/8/2022 and thereafter, he
has been detained in the Central Prison, Kannur since then, in
connection with this case. Ext.P-1 detention order has been
subsequently approved by the 1st respondent State Government as per
order dtd. 27/8/2022. The 1st respondent State Government had,
later, referred the matter for the opinion of the 4th respondent
statutory Advisory Board on 31/8/2022. The 4th respondent statutory
Advisory Board, after hearing the detenu, has given their report to the
State Government, on 14/10/2022, recommending that there are
sufficient grounds for preventive detention of the detenu in terms of
Ext.P-1 order. Later, the 1st respondent State Government has issued
G.O.(Rt.) No. 2965/2022/HOME dtd. 26/10/2022 confirming
Ext.P-1 detention order. Altogether 4 criminal cases have been taken
into account for determining the issue as to whether the detenu
would satisfy the requirements of "Known Rowdy" as per Sec.2(p)(iii)
read with Sec.2(t) of the above Act. Going by the details of the said
crimes given in Ext.P-1 detention order, there are no serious disputes that the detenu would broadly satisfy the definitional
parameters of "Known Rowdy" as per Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t)
of the above Act.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.