Anandhavalli v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1945** ## **WP(CRL.) NO. 307 OF 2023** **Crime No.625/2022 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram** ## **PETITIONER** **ANANDHAVALLI, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O.THULASEEDHARAN, VISAKH HOUSE, NEAR PERUMKUZHI NALUMUKKU, PERUMKUZHI DESAM, AROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU THALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN–695 305.** **BY ADV AJEESH M. UMMER** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 043.** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHIRAYANKEEZHU POLICE STATION CHIRAYANKEEZHU, PIN – 695 304.** - **4 THE CITY POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 033.** - **5 THE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD , KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, PIN – 682 026.** - **6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR, PIN – 680 010.** **BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.A. ANAS ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(AG-28)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.07.2023 AND THE COURT ON 12.07.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 2 **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. -----------------------------------------------------W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **C.S.Sudha, J.** In this writ petition, the petitioner, the mother of the detenu, challenges Ext.P1 order of detention dated 10/01/2023 passed under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) by the 3[rd] respondent treating the detenu as a known goonda. 2. Ext.P1 order is challenged mainly on two grounds, namely - (i) non application of mind by the detaining authority and (ii) delay in executing Ext.P1 order. 3. Heard Sri. Ajeesh M.Ummer, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader. 4. According to the learned counsel for the detenu, at the time of passing Ext.P1 order, the detenu was already in judicial custody in crime 625/2022, Kadakkavoor police station, registered alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. Section 22(c) W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 3 deals with commercial quantity of the contraband drug. When commercial quantity is involved, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act comes into play and there would be no possibility of the detenu getting bail. In such circumstances, the detaining authority ought to have stated as to why a detention order was necessary. In Ext.P1 order, the said fact has not been stated and therefore the argument advanced is that there has been non application of mind by the detaining authority. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that reasons have been clearly given in Ext.P1 order and hence there is no infirmity. Reference was also made to the decision **Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, 2019 KHC 6662.** 6. In **Dimple Happy Dhakad** ( _Supra_ ), it has been held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu though already in custody, is likely to be released on bail and on being released, he is likely to indulge in further prejudicial activities, is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in **Senthamilselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu** , **2006 (5) SCC 676** , pointed out that the satisfaction of the authority coming to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail is the subjective satisfaction W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 4 based on the materials before it and normally the subjective satisfaction arrived at is not to be interfered with. In the said case, it was found that a reading of the grounds of detention clearly indicated that the detenu had been indulging in smuggling gold along with others and habitually committing the offence unmindful of the revenue loss and the impact on the economy of the nation. The detention order referred to the role played by the detenu in receiving the gold and disposing of the smuggled gold through his multiple jewellery outlets and his relatives. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the High Court went wrong in quashing the detention order merely on the ground that the detaining authority had failed to expressly record the finding that there was real possibility of the detenu being released on bail. 7. It is well settled that there is no prohibition in law to pass a detention order in respect of a person who is already in custody in respect of a criminal case. However, if the detention order is challenged, the detaining authority will have to satisfy the court that the authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was actually in custody and there are materials before the authority on the basis of which it could have reasons to believe that there was real possibility of his release on bail and further on W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 5 being released he would probably indulge in activities which are prejudicial to public order. ( **Huidrom Konungajo Singh v. State of Manipur** , **(2012) 7 SCC 181).** 8. In the case on hand, the relevant portion of Ext.P1 order reads- " റ�പ��ർട�� അന�ബന പ�ഖകള�� പ��പ��ധ�ചത�ൽ ശ�� �ബ��ന�ഥ� S/o.ത�ളസ�ധ�ൻ കക�ലപ�തക പകസ� ഉൾക�ക$ അ$�യ�&$� ക�റക(ത)ങള�ൽ ഏർക�ട� വ��നത�ന�ൽ $�യ�ള�ക$ ദ/ന�/�ന ശപവർതനങൾ ന���ക�&�നത�ന�യ� ച�റയ�ൻക�ഴ� പപ�ല�സ� പ4ഷന�ൽ നമർ 99/GL/06/BSD ത�യത�. 05.01.2006 ശപക��� റ7ഡ� ഹ�4റ� ഷ�റ� ആ��ഭ�ച�ട�ളത�� ആയത� ന�ലന�ർത� വ��നത�മ�ണ�. ച�റയ�ൻക�ഴ� പപ�ല�സ� പ4ഷൻ ദശക� 84/ 1997 U/s 143,146, 149, 302 IPC & 27 of Arms Act നമർ പകസ�ൽ എത�ർകക�യ�&� ത���വനനപ��� ഫ�4� ശ$�&� പക�$ത� ജ�വപ�)ന� ��ക വ�ധ�ച� ത���വനനപ��� കസൻശ$ൽ ജയ�ല�ൽ പ�ർ��ച� വ�പവ ന�യമ പഠനത�ന�യ� ബഹ�: പക�$ത�യ�ൽ ന�ന� ��കയ�ൽ ഇളവ� സമ�/�ച� ജയ�ൽ പമ�ച�തന�യ�ട�ളത�മ�ണ�. ത�$ർന� എത�ർകക� ബഹ�: സ�ശപ�� പക�$ത�യ�ൽ അ��ൽ നൽക� ��ക റദ� കചയG� 15.09.2016 ത�യത� ഉത�വ� പന$�യ�ട�ളത�മ�ണ�. പഠനത�ന�യ� പക�$ത�യ�ക$ അന�മത� വ�ങ� ജയ�ൽ പമ�ച�തന�യ എത�ർകക� വ�ണ�� ഗ���ത� ക�റക(ത)ങള�ൽ ഏർക�ട�ട�ളത�ണ�. എത�ർകക�കയ ആയത�ൽ ന�ന�� പ�ൻത�����&�നത�ന� പവണ� അറ4�, റ�മ�ൻറ� ത�$ങ�യ ന$പ$�കൾ സJ�ക��ച�ട�� അ$�&$� സമ�ധ�ന ല�ഘന ശപവർത�കള�ൽ ഏർക�ട� വനത�ന�ൽ W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 6 എത�ർകക�കയ ന�യമത�ൻ്�കറ വ��ത�യ�ൽ ന�ർത�ൻ $�യ�ന�ൽ ന�ന�� ഒ�� വർഷ&�ലപതയ�&� സമ�ധ�ന പ�ലനത�ന�ള പബ�ണ� വയ �&�നത�പല&� ച�റയ�ൻക�ഴ� പപ�ല�സ� പ4ഷന�ൽ ന�ന�� u/s. 107 സ�.ആർ.പ.സ� ശപക��മ�ള റ�പ��ർട� ത���വനനപ��� സബ� ഡ�വ�ഷണൽ മജ�സ� പശ$റ� പക�$ത� മ�മ�കക ഹ�ജ��&� അന�ബന ന$പ$�കൾ പNർത�യ�&�യ�ട�ളത�� ത�$ർന� MC 37/2022 നമ��യ� വ�ച��ണയ�ല���ക& 20.04.2022 ത�യത� പക�$ത� എത�ർകക�കയ സമ�ധ�നപബ�ണ� ന$പ$�കൾ&� വ�പധയന�&�യ�ട�ളത�ണ�. …................................................. ….................................................. ശ��.�ബ��ന�ഥ� S/o.ത�ളസ�ധ�കനത�ക�യ�ള പകസ�കള�ക$ വ��കലന� കചയG�. $�യ�ൻ 7 പകസ�കള�ൽ ഉൾക�ട���&�ന�. അവയ�ൽ 4 പകസ�കള�കല എൻ.ഡ�.പ�.എസ� ആകP�കല 20(b) (ii) (B),29, 22 (C) എന� വക���കൾ ശപക��� ക�റക(ത)� കചയG���&�ന�. ഈ ക�റക(ത)ങൾ 2007 കല സ�മNഹ) വ���ദ ശപവർതനങൾ (ത$യൽ) ആകP�കല 201 വക���ന�കറ ന�ർവചനത�ൽ ഉൾക�$�നത�ണ�. കN$�കത ഇന)ൻ ��ക ന�യമത�കല XVI, XVII, XXII എന� അദ)�യങള�ൽ കപ$�ന 354, 341, 323, 507, 509, 354 D, 427, 447 എന� വക���കൾ ശപക��� ക�റക(ത)� കചയG���&�ന�. അത�ന�ൽ ശപസG�ത ആകP�കല 2 (t )(i ) & 2 (t )(ii ) വക���കൾ ശപക��� ഒ�� 'റ7ഡ� " ആയ� കണ&�&�യ���ന�. ഈ �ണ�� ന�ർവചനങൾ പചർത� $�യ�ൻ ആകP�കല 2 (j ) ന�ർപദ��&�ന ത�ത�ൽ 7 വ)ത)സG പകസ�കള�ൽ " ശപത�യ�യത�ന�ൽ ആകP�കല 2 (o)(ii) വക��� ശപക��� ഒ�� ഒ�� W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 7 അറ�യക�$�ന ഗ�ണയ�യ�" പബ�ധ)ക�ട���ന�. ഉപ/)�ഗസർ വ�/�യ�യ പകസ�കള�ൽ കത�ണ�മ�തല�കൾ സJതശന സ�ക�കള�ക$ സ�ന�ധ)ത�ല�ണ� കകണ$�ത�ട�ളത�. പമൽ�റഞ ശപക��മ�ള ശപവർത�കള�ൽ ന�ന�� ശ��.�ബ��ന�ഥ�കന ത$യ�നത�ന� ന�ലവ�ല���&�ന സ�ധ��ണ ന�യമങൾ അപ�)�പGകമന� $�യ�ന�കറ അ$�&$�യ�ള ശപവർത�കൾ പ��പ��ധ�ചത�ൽ ന�ന�� വ)കമ�യ സ�ഹച�)ത�ൽ കപ�ത�ജനങള�ക$ ജ�വന�� സJത�ന�� സ��കണ� നൽപകണത� അത)ന�പപക�തമ�കയ�ല�� $�യ�കന സJതശനമ�യ� വ�$�ന പക� ആ ശപപ/�ത� സമ�ധ�ന ല�ഘനപ�മ�യ ക�റക(ത)ങൾ അ$�&$� ഉണ�ക�ൻ സ�ധ)തയ�ളത�ന�ല�� $�യ�കന അത�ൽ ന�ന�� പ�ന�����&�നത�ന� മറ� മ�ർഗങൾ ഇല�തത�ന�ല�� ന�ലവ�ൽ ജ�ഡ�ഷ)ൽ ക4ഡ�യ�ൽ ത�$ർന� വ��ന $�യ�കന കപ�ത�ജന സമ�ധ�ന ല�ഘന ശപവർത�കള�ൽ ന�ന�� അ$�യന��മ�യ� പ�ന�����&�നത�പല&�യ� $� എത�ർകക�ക&ത�ക� 2007 കല പക�ള സ�മNഹ) വ���ദ ശപവർതനങൾ (ത$യൽ) ആകP�കല വക��� 3 (1 ) ശപക��� ജ�ല� പപ�ല�സ� പമധ�വ� (ത���വനനപ��� റNറൽ) ൻകറ 24.10.2022, 12,12,2022 എന� ത�യത�കള�കല റ�പ��ർ$� പ��ഗന�ച ക�ലത�മസ� കN$�കത ഉ$ന$� ക��തൽ ത$ങൽ ഉത�വ� പ�റക�$�വ�&�ന�.” 9. Therefore, though the detaining authority has not stated in so many words that though the detenu is in custody in a NDPS case involving commercial quantity of drug, Ext.P1 order is still necessary, a reading of W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 8 the order shows clear application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the order. The reasons which prompted the passing of the order are clearly stated. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in passing Ext.P1 order cannot be interfered with by this Court. Therefore, the argument that there has been no application of mind is only liable to be rejected. 10. The second argument is regarding the delay in executing Ext.P1 order. In support of this argument, reference was made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Saleena v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC Online Ker. 6583 : (2023) 1 KLJ 133** . The learned Government Pleader on the other hand relies on another Division Bench decision of this Court, that is, **Anju P.Anilkumar v. State of Kerala, 2023 (4) KLT 67** . In **Saleena** ( _Supra_ ), the detention order had been passed on 21/03/2022 when the detenu therein was already in judicial custody from 03/02/2022 onwards. His bail application was dismissed on 03/02/2022. Though the detenu was already in custody, the respondents had taken steps to execute the detention order by the formal arrest of the detenu only on 30/03/2022. Hence, the contention taken in the said case was that the delay of nine days, that is, the time gap between Ext.P1 detention order dated 21/03/2022 W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 9 and the recording of formal arrest of the detenu for executing the order of 30/03/2022, was fatal. The Division Bench held that after having issued the detention order on 21/03/2022, nothing prevented the authorities concerned to make a request immediately to the jurisdictional magistrate for grant of permission to arrest the detenu. However, the formal application was moved only on 26/03/2022. Thereafter, though permission was granted on 28/03/2022, the detention order was executed only on 30/02/2022. It was held that the authorities concerned had not acted with due diligence in executing the detention order in order to effectuate the averred objective of the measure of preventive detention. The approach of the authorities was held to be not serious and a responsible cause of action and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the delay in executing the order was fatal. 10.1. In **Anju P. Anilkumar** _(Supra)_ a delay of 17 days in executing the order was held not inordinate or fatal as proper explanation had been furnished by the respondents for the time taken for executing the order. 11. In the case on hand, admittedly the detenu was in custody when Ext.P1 order dated 10/01/2023 was passed. Immediately on the next W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 10 day, i.e., on 11/01/2023 the third respondent had submitted a request to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking permission to execute Ext.P1 order. The request was granted on 12/01/2023. Ext.P1 order was thereafter executed on 16/01/2023. In the writ petition, no ground has been raised regarding the delay in execution of the order. The ground raised is delay in passing Ext.P1 order, which point was never urged at the time of arguments. Therefore, it was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that since such a ground had never been raised, no explanation has been given by the respondents in the counter. It is well settled that in an application for writ of habeas corpus, the practice is not to follow strict rules of pleadings. Normally, writ petitions are decided on the basis of affidavits and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise grounds not taken in the petition at the time of hearing. However, the same rule is not applicable to a petition for grant of a writ of habeas corpus. It is enough for the detenu to say that he is under wrongful detention and the burden lies on the detaining authority to satisfy the court that the detention is not illegal or wrongful and that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. ( **Smt.Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1983 ; S.P.Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149** and **Mohinuddin v.** W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 11 **District Magistrate, Beed, AIR 1987 SC 1977** ). 12. It is also well settled that all delay is not fatal. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If there is inordinate or unreasonable delay, then the same will have to go in favour of the detenu. In **Abdul Salam alias Thiyyan v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1446)** , the Apex Court has held that the delay in all cases will not sever the necessary nexus considering the nature of the prejudicial activities indulged by the detenu and the likelihood of his repeating the same. It is this potentiality in him that has to be taken into consideration and if the detaining authority is satisfied on the available material, then on mere delay, as long as it is not highly unreasonable and undue, the Court should not normally strike down the detention on that ground. 13. In **Saleena** ( _Supra_ ) relied on by the petitioner there was delay of 5 days in moving the court concerned as per whose order the detenu was in judicial custody, for permission to execute the order. After getting permission also, there was further delay in executing the order. It was in such circumstances the delay was held to be fatal. In the case on hand, the authority concerned is seen to have taken steps immediately for moving the court concerned seeking permission to execute the detention order. It is true W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 12 that it is thereafter, there occurred some delay in executing the order. This is not a case where the detenu was on bail. Had he been on bail and still the authorities concerned had delayed the execution of the order, then that would have been a case in favour of the detenu. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that the delay of three days in executing the order of detention while the detenu was in judicial custody, is fatal. Therefore, the argument regarding delay is only liable to be rejected. In the result, the petition is found to be without any merits and hence it is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- **P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** **Sd/-** **C.S.SUDHA JUDGE** ak/Jms W.P.(Crl) No. 307 of 2023 13 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.)307/2023** ## **' - PETITIONER S EXHIBITS:** ## **Exhibit P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO S13476074/2022 DATED 10.01.2023 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS SERVED ON THE DETENUE IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION IS PRODUCED.** **Exhibit P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.01.2023 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P3** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.02.2023 BEFORE FIFTH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P4** **A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO. 632/2023/HOME DATED 09.03.2023.**