Aswathy K.A Vs State Of Kerala

Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. The petitioner is the wife of Mr. Arun ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P4 order of detention dated 04.07.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (‘KAAP Act’ for brevity). The said order stands confirmed by the Government and he has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year.

2. The records available before us disclose that a proposal was submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur City, on 20.06.2024 seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the KAAP Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. For the purpose of initiation of the said proceedings, the detenu was classified as a 'known rowdy' as defined under Section 2p(iii) of the KAAP Act. The details of the cases considered by the detaining authority for classifying the detenu as a “known rowdy” are given below:-

It appears from the order that the detenu was released on 24.01.2024 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. After his release, he got himself involved in Crime No. 334/2024 of Ollur Police Station, which was registered on 15.04.2024. In the said case, the detenu was arrested on 16.04.2024 and he was released on bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 10.05.2024.

3. We heard Sri. Vishnu Prasad Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anas K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated, as the same is passed without proper application of mind disregarding the procedural safeguards envisaged in the KAAP Act. According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in passing the detention order after the last prejudicial activity. It is pointed out that the long delay in passing the detention order will snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. Another contention taken is that the Advisory Board had personally heard the detenu in the absence of the Chairman of the said Board and hence, the opinion of the Advisory Board is vitiated. It was further submitted that the copy of the confirmation order passed by the Government with respect to the earlier detention order was not served on the detenu and hence there is a violation of procedural safeguards. The counsel for the petitioner further urged that crime No.334/2024 of Ollur Police Station, registered on 16.04.2024 ought not to have been reckoned for passing the impugned order as the said case was registered in connection with an incident that arose from a dispute between the detenu and his neighbour.

5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that there is no unreasonable delay in passing Ext.P4 detention order. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that earlier on three occasions, detention orders were passed by the jurisdictional authority considering the recurring involvement of the detenu in criminal activities and out of which the detenu had undergone detention as directed in the first and second detention orders. However, the third detention order was quashed by the High Court vide order in WP(Crl.) No.1112/2023 dated 24.01.2024. After the quashing of the third detention order, the detenu got himself involved in a crime and accordingly. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the contention in the writ petition that the copy of the confirmation orders passed by the Government is not served on the detenu is incorrect. It was further urged that the Chairman of the Advisory Board heard the detenu personally along with the other members and the Advisory Board formed its opinion and forwarded the same to the Government with the junction of the Chairman and contra allegations in the writ petition are baseless and false. According to the counsel, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 detention order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.

7. The records reveal that the impugned order is the fourth in a series of detention orders passed against the detenu by the jurisdictional authority. The first order of detention was passed against the detenu on 23.02.2017. The second order was passed on 14.11.2018 and the third one was passed on 02.06.2023. From the records, it is borne out that the detenu underwent detention pursuant to the first and second orders of detention. However, the third detention order was quashed by this Court vide order in WP(Crl.) No.1112/2023 dated 24.01.2024. After the quashing of the detention order dated 02.06.2023 and his release from jail, the detenu again involved in criminal activity and resultantly, a case was registered against him as Crime No.334/2024 of Ollur Police Station for offences punishable under Section 452, 294(b), 506(ii) and 323 of the IPC. Being satisfied that an order of detention alone is the only way out to restrain the detenu from repeating criminal activities affecting public order, the Superintendent of Police had proposed proceedings under KAAP Act against the detenu.

8. The next question is whether there is a causal live link between the last prejudicial act and the order of detention. In T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [1990 SCC Cri 76], the Apex Court held that the question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is an undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of the detention order, the court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.

9. We have already detailed the sequence of events. The detenu was arrested in connection with the last prejudicial act on 16.04.2024 and he was released from custody by the learned Magistrate on 10.05.2024. It was after the release, i.e., on 20.06.2024 that a proposal was submitted pointing out that the detenu was continuing as a known rowdy and that initiation of proceedings under the KAAP Act was required to curb his activities. Based on the said proposal, the detention order was issued on 04.07.2024 within 14 days from the date of proposal. Though the last prejudicial act was on 16.04.2024, the fact remains that the detenu was in judicial custody till 10.05.2024. Having considered the sequence of events and the facts and circumstances, the delay in passing the order cannot be said to be inordinate so as to snap the live link with the last prejudicial activity.

10. A perusal of the copy of the confirmation orders issued by the Government confirming earlier orders of detention would vouch for the fact that the copies of the said orders were served on the detenu. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner regarding non service of such confirmation orders is unsustainable and baseless.

11. The next contention taken in the present petition is that in the meeting of the Advisory Board, the Chairman was not present when the matter was heard and hence the opinion of the Advisory Board forwarded to the Government is vitiated. We are unable to accept the said contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the report of proceedings of the Advisory Board produced by the Government Pleader would show that in the meeting of the Advisory Board, the Chairman was also present and he attended the said meeting through Google Meet. Therefore, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the opinion of the Advisory Board was formed in the absence of the Chairman.

12. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the last prejudicial activity cannot be reckoned for passing an order of detention is also unsustainable. This contention was based on the ground that the case related to the last prejudicial activity was registered in connection with an incident that arose from a dispute between the detenu and his neighbour. Although the petitioner claims that the crime related to the last prejudicial activity is connected with an incident that arose from a dispute between the detenu and his neighbour no material whatsoever is seen produced from the petitioner's side to substantiate this claim. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or impropriety in reckoning the last prejudicial activity for passing the impugned order.

13. From a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that the competent authority passed the detention order after thoroughly verifying all the materials placed by the sponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under Section 3(1) of the KAAP Act is vitiated in any manner.

In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed.