Haifa Said Muhamood vs State Of Kerala

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This writ of habeas corpus was filed by the wife of the detenu. The detenu is involved in four crimes. The first crime is based on political rivalry. In the second crime, there was a case and a counter case and it appears that the parties have settled the same. The third crime is pending and in that crime, the detenu is the seventh accused. In the fourth crime, petition for quashing the crime is pending, but they settled the case.

After adverting to the cases as above, we find that only the third crime is fit to be considered for the purpose of detention order. No doubt, offences registered against him in other crimes would qualify for the purpose of passing detention order. Nevertheless, we have to take into account whether those crimes would have an element to vitiate the public order. As we noted above, those crimes will not result in vitiating public order and therefore, those crimes cannot be considered for passing the detention order.

Taking note of the fact that the third crime alone is fit for passing the detention order and being a solitary crime, we order that the detention order is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, provided, if he is not otherwise required in any other case under law.

This W.P. (Crl.) is disposed of as above.