AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is the mother of the detenu who is detained under the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Petitioner was detained by Ext. P6 order dated 2.11.2011. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions. The detenu is detained on the basis of five cases and treating him as a known rowdy. One of the cases is Crime No. 726/2011 of Hosdurg Police Station u/s 454, 392 of Indian Penal Code. Though the petitioner has urged few contentions before us, we feel that we need only refer to one or two of the same.
One of the contentions taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner was bailed out in Crime No. 726/2011. Ext. P12 is the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg. Various conditions are imposed. The order is dated 19.7.2011. The sixth condition imposed was that the detenu shall not commit any other offence while on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said bail order was not placed before the detaining authority. This is not disputed. Learned Additional DGP does not dispute that the bail order does not receive any consideration before the detaining authority. Therefore, it can be taken that the bail conditions were not considered by the detaining authority. We have already held in W.P. (Crl.) No. 33/2012 that the condition in a bail order that the person bailed out shall not involve in any other crime while on bail is a vital condition which must receive the attention of the detaining authority. We see no reason to take a different decision in this case. Therefore, this is a case where the sponsoring authority has not placed this vital information before the detaining authority and the detaining authority also has not considered the same. This results in the detention order become flawed in law. There is another contention also of the petitioner which we may notice and that is the detenu was not supplied with the report of the sponsoring authority in Malayalam. However, we need not rest our decision on the said case as we feel that the ground which we have referred to regarding non- consideration of bail condition is sufficient for success of the petition.
In the result, we allow the Writ Petition (Criminal) and quash Ext. P6 order of detention and we further direct that the detenue Sri. Arshad, S/o. Abdulla who is detained at Central Prison, Kannur shall be released forthwith unless his detention is wanted in connection with any other case.
Registry will communicate this direction to the concerned prison Authorities forthwith.