Deepamol D.R vs State Of Kerala

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu.

The detenu is 30 years old. He is involved in four crimes. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the detenu is an alcoholic and he committed the offences under the influence of alcohol.

We have gone through, in detail, the nature of the offences committed by him. All offences though qualifying for registration of passing the impugned detention order, the nature of offences committed appears to be affecting only law and order, not public order. There is a difference between law & order and public order. The public order under law means that a larger society would be affected by actions of such persons, who are ordered to be detained. It is true that that the detention order is authorized for such detention. But, in a case like this, if a person commits such offences under the influence of alcohol, an immediate action should have been taken by the detention authority for his/her reforms and de-addiction. The detention authority also should apply its mind as to the reasons and motive for committing such offences. The very purpose of detention order is to prevent repetition of the offences that may affect peace and tranquility in a society and to improve the detenu through reformative methods. If this is not addressed in a case like this, the very purpose of the detention order would be defeated. Considering the factual circumstances, we are of the view that the nature of the offences committed by the detenu would affect only law and order and cannot per se say that it would vitiate public order.

Therefore, the WP(Crl) is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if his further detention is not otherwise required under law.