Omana v. State of Kerala and Others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`** ## **`THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 7TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(CRL.) NO. 656 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` OMANA AGED 48 YEARS, W/O AYYAPPAN, LAKSHMI VILASAM (H), KGP X/166, KOODAVAYAL KARA, KANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685620. ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.K.SHYJU DEEPAK RAJ C.P.ROOPA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 2THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KUYILMALA, PAINANVU PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685603. 3THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685603. 4THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680010. 5THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MARAYOOR POLICE STATION, MARAYOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN – 685620. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI. K.A.ANAS-GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` # **ALEXANDER THOMAS & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------** W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 **--------------------------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas, J.** The prayers in the afore captioned W.P.(Crl.), seeking for Habeas Corpus and for certiorari, etc., are as follows: - _“i) Issue a Writ of Habeas corpus directing the 4[th] respondent to produce the body of ‘Mr.Sarath @ Siva, the detenue and release him._ - _ii) Issue a writ of certiorari and thereby call for the record in connection with Exhibit-P1 detention order as confirmed by the 1[st] respondent by Exhibit P2 order and set aside the same._ - _And_ - _iii) Grant such other reliefs that this Honorable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Deepak Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu involved in this case. The detenu, Mr.Sarath @ Siva, aged 28 years, has been detained under Sec.3 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred for short as ‘KAAPA’). Pursuant to the report dated 23.03.2022 of the sponsoring agency (3[rd] respondent-District W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 2 Police Chief), the 2[nd] respondent-District Magistrate, who is the authorised detention authority, has issued Ext.P1 detention order dated 08.04.2022, ordering preventive detention of the detenu under Sec.3(1) of the KAAPA. The impugned Ext.P1 detention order has been executed by the arrest and actual detention of the detenu on 08.04.2022. Thereafter, Ext.P1 detention order has been duly approved by the competent authority of the 1[st] respondent-State Government under Sec.3(3) of the KAAPA, on 21.04.2022. It is the specific case of the respondents that the grounds of detention and the relevant materials thereto, etc., have been duly served on the detenu on 08.04.2022, as required under Sec.7(2) of the KAAPA. Further that, at that time, the detenu has been duly informed about his right to consult a lawyer of his choice as well as the right to submit representations before the Advisory Board and the State Government, etc. The 1[st] respondent-State Government had referred to the recommendation/report of the Advisory Board, constituted as per the abovesaid Act, on 06.05.2022, in the matter of the detention of the detenu. The Statutory Advisory Board, headed by a former Judge of this Court, has heard the detenu on 23.05.2022 and thereafter, the Advisory Board has submitted their report to the W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 3 1[st] respondent-State Government, in the matter, on 30.05.2022, with the recommendation that there is sufficient cause for detaining the detenu, in terms of Ext.P1, so as to enable the Government to confirm the detention order. Based on the said recommendations and report of the Advisory Board, the competent authority of the 1[st] respondent-State Government in the Home Department, has confirmed Ext.P1 detention order on 06.06.2022. 4. The last prejudicial activity, allegedly committed by the detenu, viz., the date of commission of the last offence, in this case is on 13.03.2022. So, the time period between the last prejudicial activity and Ext.P1 detention order dated 08.04.2022 is 26 days, i.e., period from 13.03.2022 to 08.04.2022. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case are as follows. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, we would record each of the separate contentions raised by the petitioner and the reply thereto, furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent, and our findings on each of such contentions. 6. Six cases have been specifically taken into account by the detention authority for the purpose of consideration and issuance of W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 4 the impugned detention order. The details of the six cases, as given in the detention order and other documents have been delineated in para No.6 of the counter affidavit dated 14.09.2022, filed by the first respondent-State Government. There are no factual disputes regarding the averments in those pleadings. Hence, for the sake of convenience, we are extracting the details of the six crimes involved in this case and the same are as follows:- ## _“_ _**i. Crime No.172/2018 of Marayoor Police Station registered u/s 341,323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC:**_ _The case is that on 24.08.2018, night, on a public road at Nachivayal in marayoor Village, the detenu restrained the complainant due to enmity, assaulted and caused him bodily injury and threatened to kill him by showing a hatchet. In this case, the detenu who is the sole accused was released on bail on 20.09.2018. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 26.09.2018 and the case is pending trial before Hon’ble Judicial First Class magistrate Court, Devikulam as CC No. 568/2018._ ## _**ii. Crime No.139/2019 of Marayoor Police Station registered u/s 294(b), 452, 427, 308, 324, 34 of IPC:**_ _The case is that on 02.06.2019, evening, he detenu along with the coaccused entered wrongfully into Sony Electricals run by the complainant and damaged electronic equipment which caused a loss of Rs.6000/- and attacked the complainant and one other person with a knife which resulted in bodily injuries. In this case, the detenu who is the first accused was released on bail on 12.06.2019. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 31.07.2019 and the case is pending trial before Hon’ble District & Sessions Court, Thodupuzha as SC No.578/2019._ ## _**iii. Crime No.205/2019 of Marayoor Police Station registered u/s 447, 341, 323, 324, 394, 506(ii), 34 of IPC:**_ _The case is that on 08.08.2019, afternoon, the detenu along with three co-accused trespassed into a plantation in Pallanad where the complainant is working as a supervisor, committed robbery of one_ W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 5 _mobile phone which is worth Rs.18,000/-, attacked and caused bodily hurt to the complainant with a rod and hand. The detenu is the 1st accused in this case. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 30.08.2019 and the case is pending trial before Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam as CC No.673/2019._ ## _**iv. Crime No.583/2020 of Marayoor Police Station registered u/s 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 427, 34 of IPC:**_ _The case is that on 05.11.2020, noon, the five accused including the detenu formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed with weapons such as stick, iron rod and stone into house premise of the sister of the complainant, created noise and while the complainant questioned their activity the accused assaulted the complainant, his sister and one other person who tried to obstruct their assault with weapons and hand which caused grievous hurt to them. The detenu is the 5th accused in this case. He was remanded on 06.11.2020 and enlarged on bail on 19.11.2020. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 30.12.2020 and the case is pending trial before Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam as CC No. 235/2021._ ## _**v. Crime No.380/2021 of Marayoor Police Station registered u/s 294(b), 323, 341, 354, 354(A)(I)(IV), 324, 34 of IPC:**_ _The case is that on 28.06.2021, evening, due to enmity with the woman complainant, the detenu and 3 other accused wrongfully restrained complainant, abused her with filthy language, teared off her nighty, pressed her breast, hit on her belly and also caused bodily hurt to 3 other persons with stone and stick who tried to obstruct their assault. The detenu who is the 2nd accused was remanded on 29.06.2021 and released on bail on 20.07.2021. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 30.08.2021 and the case is pending trial before Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam as CC No.341/2021._ ## _**vi. Crime No.151/2022 of Marayoor Police Station registered u/s 294(b), 323, 341, 506(ii), 34 of IPC :**_ _The case is that on 13.03.2022, evening, due to previous enmity with the complainant, 4 accused including the detenu, wrongfully restrained the complainant, threatened to kill him and caused bodily hurt to him. The detenu who is the 3rd accused was released on bail on 20.03.2022. Charge sheet was submitted before Court on 25.03.2022 and the case is pending trial before Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam.”_ 7. There are no factual disputes that the involvement of the W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 6 detenu in the aforesaid six cases would attract the ingredients of Sec.2(p)(iii) read with Sec.2(t) of the KAAPA, so as to classify the detenu as ‘known-rowdy’. So also, the prejudicial activities, going by these cases, would also attract the basic ingredients of ‘Anti-Social Activities,’ as per Sec.2(a) of the Act. Hence, there is no necessity for us to get into the details of the definition of ‘known-rowdy’, ‘rowdy’, etc., as per Sec.2(p) & Sec.2(t) and also regarding the definition of ‘Anti-Social Activities,’ as per Sec.2(a) of the KAAPA and as to how the ingredients are satisfied in that regard. 8. Three contentions have been broadly urged by the petitioner. **Contention A** : The first contention is that there has been flagrant violation of the mandatory requirement under Sec.7(2) of the Act, inasmuch as a copy of the report of the sponsoring agency to the detention authority, has not been furnished to the petitioner at the time of serving of Ext.P1 detention order, and the grounds of detention and other materials, etc. That, the non-service of this crucial and relevant document, viz., a copy of the report of the Sponsoring Agency, to the detenu, would be fatal , in the facts of this case. W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 7 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the only ground urged in that regard, in the pleadings in the memorandum of this writ petition (criminal), is the one at ground E, which reads as follows:- - _“E. There is a mandatory provision under Sec.7(2) of KAAPA Act to provide all relevant documents to the detenue within 5 days of theh detention. But in the case on hand, the respondents miserably failed to follow the aforementioned procedure. On that point itself, the entire proceedings set up against the detenue lacks its legislative intention and are liable to be set aside.”_ 10. It is pointed out that there is no specific pleading or allegation in this writ petition as argued now except the above generalised allegations in Ground E. To this the 3[rd] respondent has clearly averred, in para No.10 of the counter affidavit of that party, that all relevant documents, as envisaged under Sec.7(2) of the KAAPA, have been duly furnished to the detenu, within the stipulated time and that these relevant documents have been given to the detenu on the same day of the detention, 08.04.2022 and that the detenu has acknowledged this with a receipt. Further that, details of the particular detention order were read over to the detenu and he understood the facts in this case, etc. 11. After hearing both sides, we see that the generalised allegations of the petitioner in Ground E supra, has been properly W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 8 rebutted in para No.10 of the counter affidavit of the 3[rd] respondent. 12. The respondents have pointed out that they have furnished all relevant documents, as required under Sec.7(2) of the KAAPA. Specific receipt in that regard has also been given by the detenu. The petitioner or the detenu has no case that the detenu has given any representation to any competent authority, alleging that a copy of the report of the Sponsoring Agency has not been given to him, nor has the petitioner or the detenu produced any document including the receipt signed by him to show that copy of the report of the Sponsoring Agency was not given to him. The specific pleadings of the petitioner has been properly rebutted by the respondents and so we are not in a position to countenance the abovesaid plea of the petitioner. Hence, we are constrained to reject the abovesaid contention raised in this petition. **Contention B** : The second contention raised in this petition is that, altogether six cases have been relied on by the respondents for justifying the detention order and all the six cases have been registered in Marayur Police Station, which is situated in Idukki Revenue District. That, a measure, which is much less draconian in nature than Sec.3(1) detention, has been provided in the very same W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 9 statute, in terms of Sec.15 of the Act, which provides for externment of the party concerned. 13. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Sec.15 empowers the competent authority concerned to consider and order for externment of the party concerned, to a district outside his residential district. That, in the instant case, since all the offences had taken place in the same village, situated in the same revenue district, the statutory option, as available, in terms of Sec.15, is to consider and order for the externment of the party concerned, so that he is kept away from the district concerned, which could extend for a maximum period of one year. Whereas, since the present detention order was the first detention order, the maximum period could be only upto 6 months of detention. 14. It is further argued by the petitioner that, going by the facts of this case, it was highly relevant that the competent authority should have actively considered the option of externment and after due consideration, if they had come to the conclusion that the said option of externment would not suffice in the case of the present detenu and that detention is necessary, then the matter would have been entirely different. In the instant case, the materials would 10 W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 clearly show that there has been no consideration at all of the option of externment of the detenu, in terms of Sec.15 of the KAAPA and that, in the facts of this case, such a consideration was highly relevant and crucial and non-consideration of the relevant aspect would vitiate the detention order. 15. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case in _**Anita Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors.**_ [2022 (4) KLT 271], in para No.13 thereof, to rebut this plea. Para No.13 of _**Anita Antony** ’s case supra_ [2022 (4) KLT 271], reads as follows:- _“13. The third contention is with respect to the feasibility of the remedy under Section 15 of the KAA(P)A in preference to the one under Section 3 of the Act. Here, we notice the distinction between the two provisions based on the gravity of the attendant facts and circumstances, as also, the criminal propensity of the offender. We note that, there were six cases against the detenu in the past 7 years, of which, two were not reckoned for the purpose of the instant detention. We also note that the detenu had indulged in serious offences as could be seen from the tabular statement shown here._ |_Sl._<br>_No_<br>_._|_Police Station_<br>_and Crime No._|_Date & Time_|_Offence_|_Stage_|_Court_| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |_1. _|_Alappuzha North_<br>_705/2015_|_28.05.2015_<br>_at 19.30 Hrs._|_U/s.294(b), 324,_<br>_307, 302 & 34 of_<br>_IPC_|_Pending_<br>_Trial_|_SC-684/2016_<br>_Addl. & Dist._<br>_Sessions_<br>_Court,_<br>_Alappuzha_| |_2. _|_Alappuzha North_<br>_1574/2017_|_04.09.2017_|_U/s.294(b)0 0, 341,_<br>_324, 332, 506 ii, 308_<br>_of IPC & U/s.20 r/w_<br>_S.27 of Arms Act &_<br>_U/s.3(2)(3) of PDPP_<br>_Act_|_Pending_<br>_Trial_|_SC-279/2018_<br>_Addl. & Dist._<br>_Sessions_<br>_Court,_<br>_Alappuzha_| W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 11 ||||||| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |_3. _|_Alappuzha North_<br>_1930/2018_|_18.10.2018_<br>_at 15.45 Hrs._|_8(c), 22(b) & 29 of_<br>_NDPS Act_|_Pending_<br>_Trial_|_SC-1930/2018_<br>_Addl. & Dist._<br>_Sessions_<br>_Court-III,_<br>_Alappuzha_| |_4. _|_Alappuzha North_<br>_460/2021_|_14.07.2022_<br>_at 22.30Hrs._|_U/s.143, 144, 147,_<br>_148, 149, 452, 324,_<br>_326, 307 of IPC_|_Charge_<br>_Sheet_<br>_filed_|_JFMX-1_<br>_Alappuzha_| _In the first crime, the offence involved includes the one under Section 302 and in the second, Section 308. The third one is with respect to the NDPS Act and the fourth is with respect to offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The report of the third respondent/District Police Chief is to the effect that the detenu is a potential threat to the law abiding citizens in the locality. In such circumstance, we cannot find fault with the detaining authority in electing the remedy under Section 3, as against the one under Section 15 of the KAA(P)A. We also find that the choice in this regard is a matter of discretion based on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the detenu cannot lay any claim as regards the desirability of one choice in preference to the other; nor can we interfere in such discretion properly exercised or find fault thereof.”_ 16. After hearing both sides, we note that such a contention, as to whether such an option of externment was highly relevant and crucial, should be adjudged, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 17. Going by the facts of the six crimes, in which the detenu has been involved, it would show that four out of the six cases are non-bailable offences. 18. True that the first case and the last case are cases wherein the offences are bailable offences. But, a perusal of the pleadings and materials on record, more particularly, the details of the crimes, W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 12 would clearly show that the first case involves offences as per Secs.341, 323, 324, 506(ii) of the IPC. The allegations in the FIR are to the effect that the detenu had restrained the complainant due to enmity and had caused him bodily injury and that he had threatened to kill him by showing a hatchet, etc. The second case involves a non-bailable offence and the same involves the use of a knife as a weapon, which has resulted in bodily injuries to the victim concerned and the detenu is none other than the first accused in that case. The third case is also a non-bailable offence, wherein the victim has been attacked and bodily hurt has caused to him with a rod, etc. wherein also the detenu is none other than the 1[st] accused. The fourth case is one in which the accused has assaulted not only the complainant but also his sister and one other person, who tried to obstruct their assault, with weapons and hands, which has caused grievous hurt to the victims. The fifth case is one in which the de-facto complainant/victim is a lady and the lady victim has been wrongfully restrained and she has been abused, using filthy languages and her nighty has been torn and the accused has pressed her breast and hit on her belly and also caused bodily hurt to 3 other persons with stone and stick. The sixth case, which involves bailable offences, is also W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 13 one in which the detenu and 3 other accused have wrongfully restrained the complainant and threatened to kill him and caused bodily hurt to him, etc. Applying the legal principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in _**Anita Antony** ’s case supra_ [2022 (4) KLT 271] to the facts of the present case, we are constrained to take the view that the subjective satisfaction found by the detaining authority, on the basis of cogent and relevant materials provided by the sponsoring authority, that the detenu, who is classified as a ‘known-rowdy’, has strong proclivity to engage in acts, which are anti-social activities, as conceived by the KAAPA, cannot be said to be, in any manner, vitiated by irrelevant consideration or that any relevant consideration has not been taken into effect. Going by the consistent conduct and nature of the detenu, which shows a strong proclivity for indulging in anti-social activities, and going by the nature of the offences, we are not in a position to hold that the non-consideration, if any, of the option, as per Sec.15 of the KAAPA, for externment, would have been a highly relevant and crucial aspect, in the facts of this case and that, non-consideration of those aspects would be fatal to the detention decision making process. 19. Therefore, in the facts of this case, we are not in a W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 14 position to hold that the competent respondent authority concerned has not taken into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter, as urged by the petitioner’s counsel. In other words, we are not in a position to accept the abovesaid second contention of the petitioner, as well. 20. The third and last contention urged before us, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that Sec.107 of the Cr.P.C. proceedings was initiated against the detenu and a bond has been duly executed by the detenu on 15.09.2021 and no crime was committed by the detenu for a period of six months and the sixth and the last offence involved in this case has occurred only after six months, etc. That, the fact that the detenu has not committed any offence for a long period of six months after the execution of the bond in terms of Sec.107 of the Cr.P.C. proceedings is nonconsideration of relevant aspects, which would vitiate the impugned decision making process, etc. 21. The abovesaid contention is rebutted by the prosecutor by placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case in _**Ammini v. State of Kerala**_ [2016 (2) KLT 944], wherein it has been held that the mere aspect that no W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 15 crimes were registered against the detenu for a considerable length of period, which, in that case, was six years, is not a ground to hold that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated, etc. 22. After hearing both sides, we see that, going by the case set up by the petitioner, the bond was executed by the detenu on 15.09.2021, in pursuance of Sec.107 Cr.P.C. Proceedings, initiated against him. The fifth crime, involved in this case is said to be committed on 28.06.2021. It is thereafter that the detenu has executed the bond, in terms of Sec.107 Cr.P.C. proceedings on 15.09.2021. That, the crucial aspect of the matter is that, after execution of such bond, on 15.09.2021, the detenu has committed yet another offence, which is the sixth case involved in this case, on 13.03.2022. True, that the time gap between the date of execution of the bond, on 15.09.2021, and the involvment of the last case is about six months. The Division Bench of this Court, in para No.3 of the decision rendered in _**Ammini** ’_ s case supra [2016 (2) KLT 944], considered a case where the time gap between the two offences were more than six months. A plea was taken up therein that, such a long time gap would clearly show that, the subjective satisfaction of the W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 16 detaining authority was not proper and reasonable. Dealing with the said contention, the Division Bench has held that the mere aspect that no crimes were registered against the detenu for a considerable length of six years, is not a good reason to hold that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. It has been further held therein that the nature of the crimes in which the detenu is involved is relevant in the matter of arriving at the subjective satisfaction. It is not necessary that, as the last crime was registered in the year 2009, the detenu should indulge in sufficient number of crimes to attract any of the sub-clauses under Clause (p) of Sec.2. That, what is more relevant is the cumulative effect of the nature of the crimes, in which the detenu is involved, during the previous seven years, as envisaged in Sec.2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA and the activities of the detenu in the recent crimes would give necessary factual foundation to the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. It will be pertinent to refer to para No.3 of _’_ the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Ammini**_ s case supra [2016 (2) KLT 944], which reads as follows:- W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 17 _“3. The acts done by the person concerned within the previous seven years as calculated from the date of the order imposing any restriction or detention becomes relevant to classify the said person as a ‘known rowdy’ under the KAAPA. All the five crimes registered against the petitioner come within the period of seven years as provided in Section 2(p) of the Act. Only on the ground that no crimes were registered against the detenu for a considerable length of time is not a ground to hold that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. The nature of the crimes in which the detenu is involved is also relevant in the matter of arriving at the subjective satisfaction. It is not necessary that after the last crime registered in the year 2009, the person concerned should indulge in sufficient number of crimes to attract any of the subclauses under clause (p) of Section 2. the cumulative effect of the nature of the crimes in which the detenu is involved during the previous seven years and the activities of the detenu in recent times would give the necessary factual foundation for the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. The high Court in writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its reasoning to that arrived at by the detaining authority in the matter of arriving at the subjective satisfaction. No other grounds have been raised by the petitioner.”_ ## 23. Applying the abovesaid legal principles, laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in _**Ammini** ’_ s case supra [2016 (2) KLT 944], it can be seen that, in this case, the time gap between the execution of the bond and the involvement in the last case is six months. Whereas, the time gap in _**Ammini** ’_ s case supra [2016 (2) KLT 944], between the last two crimes, was about six long years. It was held that the mere aspect that no crimes were registered against the detenu for a long period of six years, is not a good reason for the judicial review court to hold that the subjective satisfaction, arrived at by the detaining authority, is vitiated. What is more important is the nature of the facts disclosed in the commission of the crimes, in W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 18 which the detenu is involved and it is not relevant that the detenu should indulge in sufficient number of crimes after the penultimate case, so as to attract any of the Sub-clauses in Sec.2(p), so as to fulfill the definition of ‘known-rowdy’, as per that provision. What is more relevant is the cumulative effect of the nature of the crimes, in which the detenu was involved during the six previous years, as envisaged in Sec.2(p)(iii), etc. 24. We have already made a discussion regarding the factual details of each of the seven cases. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the nature of the crimes involved in these cases, we are not in a position to hold that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is, in any manner, vitiated, as urged by the petitioner. In other words, we are not in a position to accept the third and the last contention urged by the petitioner, as well. The upshot of the above discussion is that we are not in a position to interdict with the impugned decision making process, which led to the detention order and hence, the plea for quashment of the impugned detention order and the plea for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus, etc. cannot be granted by us. W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 19 In view of these aspects, the above writ petition (criminal) will stand dismissed. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Sd/- **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE** Skk//27092022 W.P. (Crl) No.656 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 656/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED 08.04.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2022 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-`** ``` NIL ```