High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-01-07Dismissed

Lynchhu v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2020-01-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. Ext.P1 detention order upheld and confirmed; detenu remains in custody. Petitioner noted that Section 13 remedies remain available for revocation of detention.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lynchhu

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Home Secretary
The District Collector & District Magistrate, Alappuzha
The District Police Chief, Alappuzha
The Sub Inspector, Alappuzha South Police Station

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Shanes Methar
• Namitha Jyothish

Counsels for Respondents

• Suresh Babu Thomas (Addl. Director General of Prosecution)
• K. A. Anas (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Lynchhu, petitioner in WP(Crl.) No.382/2019, challenges Ext.P1 detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KASPA), dated 15.01.2019, which detains Linoj on the basis of Crime No.1015/2018 (subsequently numbered SC No.1047/2018) for offences including 294(b), 342, 324 and 308 IPC read with 34. The prior detention Ext.P5 (05.12.2017) covered six earlier crimes, with detention in force from 08.12.2017 to 08.06.2018. Ext.P1 was confirmed on 01.04.2019 as per Ext.P7. The petitioner argues that because the subsequent crime leading to Ext.P1 resulted in acquittal on 11.04.2018, the detention is unwarranted and the continued detention cannot be sustained; he also notes that four of the six earlier crimes resulted in acquittals, casting doubt on the Detaining Authority’s satisfaction. The respondents contend that acquittals after detention do not vitiate the subjective/objective satisfaction and that Ext.P1 is supported by materials indicating anti-social activities. They rely on the Division Bench decision in Nafeesa v. State of Kerala (2015 (4) KHC 848) to justify consideration of earlier and ongoing conduct. The court ultimately holds that acquittals cannot invalidate the validity of Ext.P1 and that there is no merit in the petition. Dismissal follows, while leaving open the possibility of Section 13 remedies for revocation of detention.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (Section 3(1) read with Section 13(2)(i) and (ii))IPC: 452, 447, 427 r/w 34 IPCIPC: 294(b), 447, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPCIPC: 324, 326, 114 r/w 34 IPCIPC: 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(b), 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 307 IPCArms Act: Section 27Section 13 of KASPA

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Subsequent acquittal after passing order of detention does not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority (Nafeesa v. State of Kerala and others, 2015 (4) KHC 848)
Detaining Authority may consider an acquitted case for the purpose of objective and subjective satisfaction if there are sufficient materials to consider anti-social activities

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P1 detention rests on a crime in respect of which the detenu was acquitted (Crime No.1015/2018, later SC No.1047/2018) and four of six prior cases leading to Ext.P5 have ended in acquittals; thus there is no continuing material to justify detention. He urges that the Court should quash Ext.P1, direct production of the detenu and order release, and that the proper recourse is Section 13 of KASPA for revocation if warranted.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that acquittals after detention do not vitiate the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction; Ext.P1 is based on 1015/2018 with continuing anti-social activities, and prior acquittals do not negate the validity of the present detention. They rely on Nafeesa v. State of Kerala and others to justify considering ongoing materials and that the detention order remains legally sustainable. The petition is therefore without merit; while Sec. 13 remains available to challenge custody, the current order should stand.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nafeesa v. State of Kerala and others	2015 (4) KHC 848	Positive	Division Bench held that subsequent acquittal after detention does not vitiate the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction; the case is used to support the respondents’ position.
SC No. 1047/2018	SC 1047/2018	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P8 contains judgment dated 11.04.2018 in SC No.1047/2018; referenced for background facts but not as binding authority for the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Lynchhu v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941** **WP(Crl.).No.382 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **LYNCHU AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JACOB, PALLIPARAMBU VEEDU, NORTH OF KAITHVANA CHURCH, KAITHAVANA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 011** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY IS HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MANGISTRATE ALAPPUZHA-688 524** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ALAPPUZHA-688 011** - **4 THE SUB INSPECTOR, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001** **R1-4 BY ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.SURESH BABU THOMAS** ## **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.A. ANAS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019** **2** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 7[th] day of January, 2020**_ ## _**Nagaresh, J.**_ Petitioner, whose brother is detained in Thiruvananthapuram Central Prison in execution of Ext.P1 order of detention dated 15.01.2019 passed under Section 3(1) read with Section 13(2)(i) and (ii) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, seeks to quash the order and to command the respondents to produce the detenu by name Linoj before this Court and to release him forthwith. 2. Ext.P1 detention order under challenge is the second detention order passed against the detenu. The detenu was earlier detained as per Ext.P5 detention order dated 05.12.2017 based on the following crimes:- **WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019** **3** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Crime No.**|**Offence**|**Date of** **occurrence**| |---|---|---|---| |1|1358/2013 of Alappuzha South Police Station|452, 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC|01/09/2013| |2|985/2014 of Alappuzha South Police Station|294(b), 447, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC|29/07/2014| |3|1309/2015 of Alappuzha South Police Station|324, 326, 114 r/w 34 IPC|14/01/2015| |4|1335/2015 of Alappuzha South Police Station|143, 147, 148, 149, 120(b), 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 & 307 IPC|21/09/2015| |5|696/2016 of Alappuzha South Police Station|27 of Arms Act|27/05/2016| |6|894/2017 of Alappuzha South Police Station|294(b), 323 r/w 34 IPC|06/05/2017| The detenu was under detention from 08.12.2017 to 08.06.2018. 3. Subsequently, the detenu was found involved in Crime No.1015/2018 of Alappuzha South Police Station in respect of an incident which occurred on 21.07.2018. The crime was registered under Sections 294(b), 342, 324, 308 read with Section 34 IPC. It is based on the said subsequent crime that Ext.P1 detention order was issued on 15.01.2019. **WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019** **4** Ext.P1 order of detention was confirmed on 01.04.2019 as per Ext.P7. 4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 detention order on the ground that though Crime No.1015/2018 was registered in Alappuzha South Police Station and subsequently it was committed and numbered as SC No.1047/2018 on the files of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, after the trial, the detenu was acquitted by the court on 11.04.2018. Since the crime based on which the detenu was ordered to be detained as per Ext.P1, was found to be unsustainable and since the detenu has been acquitted after a confronted trial, the continued detention of the detenu is absolutely unwarranted, illegal and unsustainable, contended the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that out of the six crimes based on which Ext.P5 order was passed, the detenu was acquitted in four crimes. In view of the said acquittal also, further detention of the detenu is uncalled for, it is argued. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the **WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019** **5** petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 6. Even if the detenu is acquitted in four cases based on which Ext.P5 detention order was passed earlier, these acquittals cannot be taken into account to ascertain the validity of subsequent detention order issued under Ext.P1. The earlier detention order (Ext.P5) has worked itself out and the detenu was under detention for the entire period of detention. It is based on a subsequent Crime No.1015/2018 that the 2[nd] respondent has issued Ext.P1 detention order. 7. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the impact of subsequent acquittal of a detenu, who is detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, in _**Nafeesa v. State of Kerala and others** [2015 (4) KHC 848]_ . After considering the provisions of the Act, the Division Bench held that any subsequent acquittal after passing order of detention is not a ground for holding that subjective satisfaction arrived at by a Detaining Authority is vitiated. 8. Even in a case where the detenu concerned in a **WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019** **6** crime is acquitted on the ground that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt or on ground that witnesses turned hostile, still the detaining authority could take into account that case as well for the purpose of arriving at the objective as well as subjective satisfaction against the detenu, provided there are sufficient materials to consider that the person concerned is indulging in anti-social activities. 9. In the light of the said Division Bench decision of this Court, the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P1 detention order should be set aside and the detenu should be released from custody consequent to the acquittal of the detenu in Crime No.1015/20187, cannot be accepted. No other substantial ground is urged by the counsel in challenge of Ext.P1. In view of the above, we find that there is no merit in the writ petition and hence it is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the subsequent acquittal of the detenu may not be a ground to set aside Ext.P1, that can be a good reason for the detenu to invoke Section 13 of the Kerala Anti-Social **WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019** **7** Activities (Prevention) Act in order to seek revocation of the detention order. We make it clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the detenu invoking Section 13 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act in order to seek revocation of the detention order. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/07.01.2020 **WP(Crl.) No.382 OF 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S-C6-2772/2018 DATED 15.01.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.0168285/2018 A DATED 27.10.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.0168285/2018-A DATED 31.12.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.0168285/2018-A DATED 15.01.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.0168285/2018-A DATED 05.12.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 08.02.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.986/2019/HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 01.04.2019 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2018 IN SC NO.1047/2018 THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ALAPPUZHA**