K. V. Jayakumar
Petitioner is the mother of detenu, Jithin @Jithu, who was detained in the
Central Prison, Viyyur, as per detention order No.DCPKD/4461/2025-S1 dated
21.04.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P1 order, he was classified as
‘known rowdy’ under Section 2p(iii) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 2007 [‘KAA(P) Act’ for the sake of brevity].
2. The records available before us would reveal that the detenu was
involved in three criminal cases;
Sl. Crime No. Police Station Crime Date Offences Involved under various Present Status
No. sections of the case
1 637/2022 Kasaba 23.09.2022 341, 323, 324, 308, 506(i) r/w Pending trial
34 IPC
2 355/2024 Palakkad Town 10.03.2024 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 IPC Pending trial
South
3 186/2025 Kasaba 01.03.2025 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) Under
and 309(6) BNS investigation
3. Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the last prejudicial act alleged against the detenu is Crime No.186/2025 of
Kasaba Police Station. The date of the alleged occurrence was 01.03.2025. There
is a delay of ten days in the registration of the FIR, ie., on 10.03.2025. The
2025:KER:51601
W.P(Crl) No.598/2028 3
name of the detenu is not stated in the FIR. The learned counsel submitted that
the case is still under investigation. It is pointed out that no materials were
produced to show any connection of the detenu with the allegations. Placing
reliance on the decision in Stenny Aleyamma Saju v. State of Kerala and
Others1, the learned counsel submitted that mere registration of the FIR against
detenu is not enough and something more is required to arrive at both objective
and subjective satisfaction for the purpose of detention. Therefore, the learned
counsel argued that the above case cannot be considered for booking the detenu
under KAA(P) Act. The detenu submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 1st
respondent on 30.04.2025 through the 5th respondent. However, the 5th
respondent, who is the Superintendent of Jail, failed to forward the
representation to the 1st respondent. This delay in forwarding and the consequent
non-consideration of the representation has caused serious prejudice to the
detenu.