High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2021-11-10Writ petition rejected; detention order upheld ...

Sandhya Arun v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(Crl.) No.254 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-11-10
Court Decision / Holding: We find no reason to interfere with the detention order. The writ petition would stand rejected.
Final Disposition: Writ petition rejected; detention order upheld under KAAPA, 2007 (Section 3(1) and Section 13). The detenue's wife’s challenge fails, and the order remains in force for one year detention period.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sandhya Arun

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary to Government
Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home & Vigilance)
District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Commissioner of Police (L & O)
Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Viyyur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sabu S. Kallaramoola
• Leejoy Mathew V.

Counsels for Respondents

• Gracious KuriaKose, A.D.G.P.
• K.A. Anas, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sandhya Arun, wife of a detenue, challenges the preventive detention order issued under KAAPA against her husband. The petition contends that the detention order was not the result of an independent application of mind by the Detaining Authority but was driven by repeated pressure from the Sponsoring Authority, with a bail order from 04.02.2021 not perused by the D.A., and with the mandatory bail condition restricting further offences not considered. It cites Sreeja Jayaprakash v. District Collector (2019 KHC 2814) to argue that failure to consider bail conditions is fatal to the detention order, and Gracy v. State of Kerala (AIR 1991 SC 1090) to claim that non-consideration of government representations vitiates detention. The detention order was under Section 3(1) KAAPA, detaining the detenue for one year, following crimes in 2019 and 2020. The order of detention was passed on 01.03.2021 and executed on 03.03.2021. The Government approved the detention within 12 days (17.03.2021). The Advisory Board submitted a report dated 28.04.2021, which the Government confirmed on 06.05.2021. The detenue's wife submitted a representation on 20.05.2021, rejected on 24.06.2021. The petitioner argues that the D.A. did not apply mind and that the bail conditions were not given due weight. The State contends KAAPA formalities were complied with, copies supplied, and that the detenue is a habitual criminal with prior detentions. The High Court ultimately finds no illegality; the grounds do not warrant interference and dismisses the writ petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 3(1)Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 13

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Dual obligation to consider detenue's representation by the Advisory Board and independently by the Detaining Authority

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the detention order was passed under sustained pressure from the Sponsoring Authority and that there was no independent application of mind by the Detaining Authority. She contends that the bail order dated 04.02.2021 was not perused and that the bail condition restricting further offences was not considered, relying on Sreeja Jayaprakash v. District Collector (2019 KHC 2814) to claim fatality for non-consideration of bail conditions, and Gracy v. State of Kerala (AIR 1991 SC 1090) to challenge non-consideration of government representations. She also asserts that proper service of papers relied on by the D.A. was lacking. The petitioner maintains KAAPA compliance and asserts prejudice from failure to apply mind.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that all KAAPA formalities were complied with, copies of documents relied upon were supplied to the detenue, and that the detenue is a habitual offender with prior detentions. The bail conditions and the sequence of reports were appropriately considered by the Detaining Authority. The Government’s approval and Advisory Board’s report are in due course, and the representation by the petitioner’s wife was examined. The State argues that the grounds urged do not establish illegality in detention.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sreeja Jayaprakash v. District Collector	2019 KHC 2814	Distinguished	Court states the dictum is not applicable to the present case and distinguishes it.
Gracy v. State of Kerala	AIR 1991 SC 1090	Distinguished	Court finds Gracy not applicable to the detention order in KAAPA context.

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 Sandhya Arun v. State of Kerala 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(CRL.) NO. 254 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **SANDHYA ARUN, AGED 29 YEARS W/O. ARUN, VAYALNIKATHIYA VEEDU, PUTHENPALAM, KANNANMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA LEEJOY MATHEW.V.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE-695 001.** - **2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (HOME & VIGILANCE) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE-695 001.** - **3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE-695 043.** - **4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L & O), POLICE GROUND, CV RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-695 014.** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021** ## **- 2 -** - **5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON,** **CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE-680 010.** **BY GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE, A.D.G.P., ASSISTED BY K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021** **- 3 -** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021 [S] --------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** **Vinod Chandran, J.** **The wife of the detenue challenges the preventive detention order and consequent detention of her husband on various grounds. We heard Adv.Sri. Sabu S. Kallaramoola for the petitioner and Sri. Anas, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State.** **2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is only on repeated pressure exerted by the Sponsoring Authority [for brevity, 'S.A.'], by additional reports submitted before the Detaining Authority [for brevity, 'D.A.'], that the detention order was passed. There is no application of mind and the order releasing the accused on bail was not perused by the D.A. The bail conditions in the order dated 04.02.2021, especially that of interdicting the detenue from committing further offences, provides** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021 - 4 -** **sufficient deterrence on the accused. The order releasing the detenue on bail has not been considered by the D.A.** _**Sreeja Jayaprakash v. District Collector [2019 KHC 2814]**_ **is relied on to argue that failure to consider the bail condition is fatal to the order of detention.** _**Gracy V. State of Kerala [AIR 1991 SC 1090]**_ **is relied on to contend that non consideration of a representation by the Government would vitiate the order of detention. It is also argued that the detenue was not served with proper papers and records relied on by the D.A., to pass Ext.P5 order of detention. The learned Senior Government Pleader points out that every formality under the Kerala AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for brevity, 'KAAPA'] has been complied with and also produced the records to show that the copies of all the documents relied on by the D.A. has been supplied to the detenue and acknowledged by him. It is pointed out that the detenue is a habitual criminal and despite two earlier orders of detention, he has continued to commit crimes disturbing the law and order in the locality. The present** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021 - 5 -** **order is the third order, which detains him for a period of one year under S.13 of the KAAPA.** **3. The crimes relied on are Crime No.2146 of 2019 dated 22.11.2019, Crime No.1781 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020, Crime No.1401 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020 and Crime No.l926 of 2020 dated 15.12.2020 all of Petta Police Station. The order of detention was made on 01.03.2021 and executed on 03.03.2021. The Government approved the same within 12 days, excluding public holidays; on 17.03.2021. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board on 23.03.2021. The Advisory Board forwarded a report dated 28.04.2021, which was confirmed on 06.05.2021 by the Government. The representation made by the wife of the detenue dated 20.05.2021 was rejected by order dated 24.06.2021.** **4. We do not see any reason to consider the grounds raised of repeated pressure exerted by the S.A. The order itself reveals that after the initial report of the S.A., on the detenue committing a crime, he was arrested and was in custody. In which circumstance, the** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021 - 6 -** **D.A called for a further report. Hence an additional report was submitted and there is no warrant to find any undue pressure having been exerted by the S.A. We also do not find any reason to uphold the contention raised of non application of mind, especially after going through the order passed by the D.A.** **5. The learned Counsel would emphasise the ground of the conditions in the bail order having not been looked into by the D.A. In page 6 of Ext.P5 the D.A. considers the said aspect. On 02.12.02020, though a report was submitted by the S.A., detention was not necessitated since the detenue was in judicial custody. Later, while the detenue was released on bail, again a crime was committed and he was remanded to judicial custody. The bail in the last crime was granted on 04.02.2021. It was immediately informed to the D.A. by a report dated 22.02.2021. The D.A. has noticed the observation of the S.A. that as soon as the final report is filed, the bail conditions operative at the investigation stage would no more be operative.** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021 - 7 -** **Obviously, bail conditions were considered. Further it is to be noticed that earlier the accused was detained under the KAAPA, which detention order was set aside by this Court. Later again a detention order was made on 03.04.2018, which was confirmed by the Government, detaining the detenue for six months. The detenue was released on 02.10.2018 and immediately thereafter, on 22.11.2019, committed a crime. Later to that, he has again committed three crimes, in all of which he was released on bail, which definitely was with the very same condition of not indulging in any further crimes. The condition has not deterred the detenue and we find no reason to interfere with the detention order on that ground.** **6. We see no application of the dictum in** _**Sreeja Jayaprakash**_ **[supra]. The dual obligation of consideration of the detenue's representation by the Advisory Board and independently by the D.A. has been scrupulously complied with in this case.** _**Gracy**_ **[supra] also is not applicable. From the records it is also revealed that the detenue has** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021 - 8 -** **acknowledged the receipt of the copies of documents relied on by the D.A. The learned Counsel does not point out any single document which was not supplied to the detenue; which has been perused by the D.A.** **We find no reason to interfere with the detention order. The writ petition would stand rejected.** **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-** **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** **sp/10/11/2021** **W.P.[Crl.] No.254 of 2021** ## **- 9 -** ## **APPENDIX** ## **' - PETITIONER S EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT NO.50/KAA(P)A/DCP (L&O)/TC/2020 DATED 02.12.2020 F THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT NO.50/KAA(P)A/DCP (L&O)/TC/2020 DATED 06.01.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPORT NO.50/ KAA(P)A/DCP (L&O)/TC/2020 DATED 27.01.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPORT NO.50/ KAA(P)A/DCP(L&O)/TC/2020 DATED 26.02.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.S.13-313648/2021 DATED 01.03.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE KAAPA. Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GROUNDS FOR DETENTION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO.1338/ 2021/HOME DATED 06.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE STATE OF KERALA. Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADVISORY BOARD KAAPA. Exhibit P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2021 IN NCRL.M.P.NO.332/2021 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**