Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala and 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 ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(CRL.) NO. 134 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. PRATHAPAN, KARAPARAMBU HOUSE, KOTHAKULAM DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680567 ``` ## **`BY ADV VISHNUPRASAD NAIR`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680001`** - **`3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THRISSUR RURAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001`** - **`4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KODUNGALLUR SUB DIVISION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680664`** - **`5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (SHO), VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680507`** - **`BY ADV.`** - **`K.A.ANAS,GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** **W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** This writ petition is instituted challenging Ext.P4 order issued under Section 15(1)(a) Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (the Act), restraining the petitioner from entering the limits of Thrissur Revenue District for a period of one year. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Ext.P4 order refers to various prejudicial activities committed by the petitioner. The last prejudicial activity referred to in Ext.P4 order is the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.98 of 2022 of Valappad Police Station. The said crime was reported on 03.02.2022. The petitioner 3 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 secured anticipatory bail in the case on 02.03.2022 and pursuant to the condition imposed in the order granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner appeared before the police on 06.03.2022. The final report in the case was filed on 30.03.2022. It is thereafter on 09.07.2022, the concerned Station House Officer recommended to the sponsoring authority under the Act for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act. An additional report was also filed by the Station House Officer to the sponsoring authority in this regard on 11.07.2022. Pursuant to the reports aforesaid, on 20.07.2022, the sponsoring authority recommended to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act in order to prevent him from entering the limits of Thrissur Revenue District. Acting upon the recommendation, after giving to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed on 01.09.2022 and the same was served on the petitioner on 06.09.2022. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as the last prejudicial activity 4 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 referred to in the order being one that took place on 02.02.2022, there is inordinate delay in initiating proceedings, and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay, it can be presumed that there is no application of mind on the aspect of the live link required to be maintained between the prejudicial activity and the initiation of proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that sole ground. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contended that there is satisfactory explanation for the delay in the order and it cannot, therefore, be contended that there was no application of mind on the aspect of the live link required to be maintained between the prejudicial activity and the initiation of proceedings. The learned Government Pleader has brought to our notice the relevant portions of the impugned order and also the relevant paragraph in the counter affidavit filed by the competent authority dealing with the aspect of delay. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the petitioner got himself involved in another prejudicial activity on 14.12.2022, viz, Crime No.903 of 2022 of Valappad Police 5 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 Station after the impugned order was served on him. According to the learned Government Pleader, the involvement of the petitioner in a prejudicial activity even after receipt of the impugned order fortifies the subjective satisfaction rendered by the competent authority as to the live link between the prejudicial activity and initiation of proceedings as also the need to pass the impugned order so as to prevent the petitioner from indulging in further anti-social activities. 6. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in a prejudicial activity after the impugned order has been passed, cannot be a reason to justify the said order. According to the learned counsel, the legality or otherwise of the order needs to be examined with reference to the facts and circumstances existing as on the date of the order, for, if the order is an illegal one, merely for the reason that the petitioner got himself involved in a prejudicial activity after the order, it cannot be treated as legal. 7. We have examined the arguments advanced 6 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 8. No doubt, there has to be a live link between the prejudicial activities and the decision of the competent authority to initiate proceedings under Section 15 of the Act. If there is a long delay between the last prejudicial activity and the initiation of the proceedings, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, it can be presumed that the live link between the prejudicial activity and initiation of proceedings is snapped. 9. As noted, the last prejudicial activity of the petitioner referred to in the impugned order is the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.98 of 2022 of Valappad Police Station. The occurrence, which is the subject matter of the said case took place on 02.02.2022. The sponsoring authority recommended for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act only on 20.07.2022. In other words, there is a delay of 5 months and 18 days in initiating the proceedings from the date of the last prejudicial activity. As noted, the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader in this regard is that the impugned order 7 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 would indicate beyond doubt that there was due application of mind on the part of the competent authority as regards the need to pass an order against the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act to prevent the petitioner from indulging in further prejudicial activities and as regards the live link between the last prejudicial activity and initiation of proceedings, to justify the initiation of proceedings. Paragraphs 11 and 13 of the impugned order, which were brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader in support of the said argument read thus: “11.ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരി അവസാനമായി ഉൾപ്പെട്ട വലപ്പാട് പോലീസ് സ്്േഷൻ ക്രൈ ം 98/2022 U/s 341, 323,324, 427, 308, r/w 34 IPC കേസിന്റെ കുറ്റകൃത്യം സംഭവിച്ചത് 02-02-2022 തിയ്യതിയിലും റിപ്പോർട്ടായത് 03-02-2022 തീയതിയിലുമാണ്. ഈ കേസിൽ അന്വേഷണം പൂർത്തിയാക്കി ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിയെ മൂന്നാം പ്രതി ചേർതത കൊടുങ്ങല്ലൂർ JFCM കോടതി മുമ്പാകെ 30-03-2022 തിയ്യതി കുറ്റപത്രം സമർപ്പിച്ചിരുന്നതും ആയത് CP 40/2022 ആയി കോടതിയുടെ പരിഗണയിലുമാണ്. ഈ കേസിലേകക വേണ്ടി ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരികക ബഹു.തൃശ്ശൂർ ജില്ലാ സെ ഷൻസ് കോടതിയിൽ നിനന CrlMC 242/2022 dtd 02/03/2022 നമ്പറായി ലഭിച്ച മുൻകൂർ ജാമ്യ ഉത്തരവിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ 06.03.2022 തിയ്യതി സ്്േഷനിൽ ഹാജരായ ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിയെ . അറസ ചെയ്തിരുന്നതും തുടർനന നിയമാനുസരണം ജാമ്യത്തിൽ വിട്ടയച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതുമാണ് ഇപ്രകാരം ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരി സാമൂഹ്യവിരുദ്ധ പ്രവർത്തികളിൽ ഏർപ്പെടട സ്ഥലത്തെ പൊതുസമാധാനത്തിന് ഭീഷണിയാവുന്ന സാഹചര്യത്തിലും തുടർച്ചയായ പൊതുജനസമാധാന ലംഘനപ്രവർത്തികളിൽ ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരി ഉൾപ്പെട്ടതിനെ തുടർന ആയതുകളിൽ നിന ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിയെ പിന്തിരിപ്പിക്കാൻ ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിക്കെ തിരെ 107 CrPC പ്രകാരം നടപടി സ്വീകരിച്ചും 8 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിയുടെ ഇത്തരം പ്രവർത്തികൾ നിരീക്ഷിക്കുന്നതിന് റൗഡി ഹിസ ി ഷീറ ആരംഭിച്ചും നടപടികൾ സ്വീകരിച്ചുവെങ്കിലും ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരി വീണ്ടും പൊതുജന സമാധാനലംഘന പ്രവർത്തികളിൽ ഏർപ്പെടട വരുന്നതായും ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിയെ സ്വതന്ത്രമായി തൃശ്ശൂർ ജില്ലയിൽ സഞ്ചരിക്കാൻ അനുവദിച്ചാൽ ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിയുമായി ഒത്തുചേർനന കുറ്റകൃത്യങ്ങളിൽ ഏർപ്പെടട വരുന്നവരുമായി സഹവസിചച തുടർന്നും പൊതുസമാധാനത്തിന് ഭീഷണിയാകുന്ന സാമൂഹ്യ വിരുദ്ധ പ്രവർത്തികൾ ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരി തുടരുമെന്നും എനിക ബ ബോധ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളതിനാൽ ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിയെ പൊതുസമാധാന ലംഘനപ്രവർത്തികളിൽ നിന്നും പിന്തിരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതിന് കേരള സാമൂഹ്യവിരുദ്ധ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ (തടയൽ) നിയമം 2007 വകുപ 15(1)(a) പ്രകാരം നടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കേണ്ടത് അനിവാര്യമാണെ ന . വെളിവാകുന്നുണ x x x x x x x x x 13. ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരിക്കെ തിരെ കേരള സാമൂഹ്യ വിരുദ്ധ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ (തടയൽ) നിയമത്തിലെ വകുപ 15(1)(a) പ്രകാരം നടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കുന്നതിനായി ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ@ഹരി ഉൾപ്പെട്ട കേസുകളുടെ വിവരങ്ങളും രേഖകളും ശേഖരിചച പ്രാഥമിക റിപ്പോർടട തയ്യാറാക്കി സമർപ്പിക്കുന്നതിൽ തൃശ്ശൂർ റൂറൽ പോലീസ് ജില്ലാ മേധാവിയുടെ കാലതാമസം ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നും നീതീകരിക്കാനാവാത്ത ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ലെന ബോധ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്.” As evident from the recitals in the extracted paragraphs, what is stated by the competent authority is that the delay has occasioned on account of the time taken for collecting the documents pertaining to the prejudicial activities committed by the petitioner and other relevant documents. The question whether the order reflects due application of mind on the part of the competent authority as regards the live link, is a question of fact to be ascertained having regard to the facts 9 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 and circumstances of the case. 10. Before delving into the question aforesaid, we find it appropriate to refer to the decision in **Stalin C.V. v. State of Kerala and Others** , 2011 (1) KHC 852, wherein a Division Bench of this court had occasion to consider the delay on the part of the competent authority in initiating proceedings under Section 15 of the Act and its impact on the live link required for the purpose of initiating action, in comparison with the delay in initiating proceedings for detention under Section 3 of the Act. Paragraph 12, and the relevant portion of paragraph 13 of the judgment read thus: “12. The next question which we must consider is the effect of the last crime which was considered by the Officer being allegedly committed on 23/03/2010, but the order of restriction under S.15 being passed on 25/09/2010. We must, first of all, remind ourselves that we are not dealing with an order of detention. An order of detention under S.3 is a grave deprivation of the personal liberty of the person detained. An order under S.15 also visits the person concerned with an incursion into his personal liberty within the meaning of Art.21. This is for the reason that every citizen has a right to travel in any part of India, subject to any law which may provide otherwise. In fact, as held in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another, 1978 KHC 477 : AIR 1978 SC 597 : 1978 (1) SCC 248 : 1978 (2) SCR 621, the right to travel 10 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 abroad itself was treated as part of Art.21 of the Constitution. Proceeding on the basis, therefore, that the order under S.15 of the Act also visits the person with the lesser deprivation of liberty in comparison with S.3, we must consider whether the principle of delay in passing an order of detention in relation to the last crime allegedly committed results in snapping of the link is as such applicable in the case of an order of restriction under S.15 and also whether, in the facts, much store can be laid by the petitioner based on the said principle. 13. xxxxxxx Therefore, the proceedings was commenced in June, 2010 itself. Unlike an order of detention under Section 3, in the case of an order of restriction under Section 15, it is mandatory that the principles of natural justice be observed. In other words, it is necessary that the Officer must issue a show cause notice and afford an opportunity of being heard. Necessarily, this consumes time. Therefore, the nature of the proceedings under Section 3 and Section 15 are inherently different. Still further more, we must also remind ourselves that in Section 15, as pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the Authority can act in a matter where the known goonda or known rowdy is indulging or about to indulge or is likely to indulge in antisocial activities and it is to prevent the concerned person from so acting in any place within his jurisdiction that an order could be passed. This language is to be contrasted with the phraseology in Section 3 where it is provided as follows: “3. Power to make orders for detaining Known Goondas and Known Rowdies.- (1) The Government or an Officer authorised under sub-section (2), may, if satisfied on information received from a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police with regard to the activities of any Known Goonda or 11 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 Known Rowdy, that with a view to prevent such person from committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.” Thus, in the case of Section 3(1) of the Act, there is an indication that the legislature intended a sense of immediacy and, therefore, a proximate nexus between the act or acts and the order of detention is inevitable. We must reiterate that Section 15, apart from allowing the Officer to delve into the past, it permits him to hypothesise about what the known goonda or known rowdy, is likely to do in the immediate future, having regard to the use of the words “about to indulge”. What is more, it also permits the Officer to glean out the likelihood of such a person indulging in anti-social activities. We must also immediately remind ourselves that certainly in comparison to the order of detention, an order of restriction under Section 15, is lighter in its impact on the personal liberty of the person concerned. In fact, the learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that it is almost like the conditions attached to bail granted by the Courts. We are not, for a moment, saying that if the act/acts which are complained of have completely lost their relevance by the passage of time, giving rise to a total absence of any nexus, still an order of restriction can be passed under Section 15. But, we do not think, in the facts of this case, that it is a case 12 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 of the said nature. Accordingly, we repel the said contention.” As evident from the extracted passages of the judgment, the question considered by this Court in the said case was whether the principle of delay snapping the live link with reference to the involvement of the person concerned in the last prejudicial activity, for passing the order of detention, would apply as such in the case of an order of restriction under Section 15 of the Act. Although this Court observed that an order of restriction cannot be passed under Section 15 of the Act if the act/acts which are complained of have completely lost their relevance by the passage of time, giving rise to a total absence of any nexus, it was held that an order of restriction under Section 15 is lighter in its impact on the personal liberty of the person concerned and that its effect is only in the nature of a condition attached to a bail order. When we examine the facts of the case on hand, in the light of the ratio in **Stalin C.V.** , (supra), we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order on the ground of delay, for the passage of time in the case on hand does not give rise to total absence of any nexus. The conduct 13 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 on the part of the petitioner in getting himself involved in another prejudicial activity immediately after serving the impugned order fortifies the subjective satisfaction rendered by the competent authority in this regard. The writ petition(Crl), in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** Mn 14 W.P.(Crl) No.134 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 134/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTERNMENT PROPOSAL DATED 20/7/2022 Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30/7/2022 Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P2 DATED 9/8/2022 Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-12419/TSR/2022 DATED 1/9/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ```