Kerala High Court
Aysha S vs State Of Kerala on 15 July, 2026
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 1 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 711 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
AYSHA S
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O NISHAD H, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEETTIL,
THAZHUTHALA CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691571
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
SRI.MUHAMMAD A. P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 2 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691101
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682026
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, VIYYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670004
BY ADV.SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 3 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the
detention order No.DCKLM/13260/2025-M-16 dated
16.12.2025 issued against Nishad H., S/o.Haris under
Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 2007 (‘KAA(P) Act’ for brevity). Petitioner is the wife of the
detenu. The said detention order stands confirmed by the
Government vide Exhibit P2 order bearing GO(Rt)
No.1282/2026/HOME dated 06.04.2026 whereby the detenu
has been ordered to be detained for a period of six months
from the date of detention. The present Writ Petition has
been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of
Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the
detenu as well as quash the detention and confirmation
orders produced as Exhibits P1 and P2 respectively.
2. After admitting the W.P.(Crl) into file, a counter
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 4 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
affidavit dated 10.06.2026 has been filed by the 3rd
respondent. Since it was deemed necessary to have a closer
scrutiny of the records and procedures undertaken by the
authorities leading to Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, we had
directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the relevant
documents in a sealed envelope and pursuant to the said
direction, the same has been produced by the learned Public
Prosecutor.
3. Pleadings in the matter thus being complete, we
proceeded to hear the learned counsel Mr.M.H.Hanis,
Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Biju Meenattoor,
learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that Exhibits P1 and P2 orders are illegal, arbitrary and hence
liable to be quashed. It is contended that the said orders
have been rendered in a mechanical fashion without applying
mind to the relevant aspects as disclosed from the records.
Non consideration of relevant materials and non compliance
with the mandatory statutory requirements under the KAA(P)
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 5 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
Act are also alleged by the learned counsel. It is contended
that Exhibit P1 detention order does not reveal compliance
with Section 3(3) of the KAA(P) Act whereby the entire records
ought to have been forthwith forwarded to the Government
and to the State Police Chief for detailed verification. Non
supply of legible copies of the documents which had been
relied on for rendering Exhibit P1 order is also pointed out by
the learned counsel contending that such non supply of
legible documents and all documents relied upon have
substantially prejudiced the interests of the detenu. Non
consideration of Exhibit P3 representation dated 19.02.2026
preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is termed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner as a violation of the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of the detenu and protected
under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on
the dictum laid down in K.M.Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of
India [(1991) 1 SCC 476] and Golam Biswas v. Union of
India and another [2015 KHC 5588].
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 6 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
petitioner that there has been a delay of 82 days in rendering
Exhibit P1 order after release of the detenu in the last
prejudicial activity. Further a delay of three months and six
days in passing Exhibit P1 order and the date of occurrence of
the last prejudicial activity is also alleged. The learned
counsel contends that there has been an inordinate delay of
72 days in passing Exhibit P1 order from after the filing of the
final report in the last prejudicial activity. According to the
learned counsel, since no valid or tenable explanation is
forthcoming for the said allegedly inordinate delay that had
been occasioned from the part of the authorities while
rendering Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, the said orders are
legally unsustainable.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the last case in which the detenu had been
allegedly involved has been settled between the parties and
thus the causal connection between the Last Prejudicial
activity on 11.09.2025 and the cause for issuance of the
detention order is no longer subsisting. Further, the detenu
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 7 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
who was arrested on 13.09.2025 was released on bail on
29.09.2025 on stringent conditions. The sufficiency of bail
conditions to prevent the detenu from committing any other
crime and thus the absence of any need to invoke the
preventive detention route to ensure that the detenu desists
from crime was not looked into or considered before issuing
the orders impugned.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that in addition to the above delays, there has been
a delay of 59 days in executing Exhibit P1 order and in so far
as no proceedings under Section 6 had been initiated within
reasonable time it reveals that there was no immediate
necessity of detaining the detenu invoking the provisions of
the preventive detention laws. That the fate of the
representation preferred by the detenu before the 1st
respondent produced as Exhibit P3 was never considered,
had violated his constitutionally guaranteed rights is also
contended by the learned counsel. It is thus contended that
Exhibits P1 and P2 orders being violative of Articles 14, 21
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 8 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
and 22 of the Constitution of India are fit to be quashed.
Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this
Court in Sneha Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC
OnLine 108).
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor basing
on the counter affidavit filed submits that Exhibits P1 and P2
orders have been rendered in accordance with law, without
any inordinate delay and are hence legally sustainable. It is
submitted that the petitioner’s husband i.e., the detenu is a
“Known Rowdy” as defined under Section (p)(iii) of the KAA(P)
Act. He had been involved in eight criminal cases during the
period from 2019 to 2025 and his activities were prejudicial to
the maintenance of the public order and had endangered the
safety and peaceful life of the public necessitating the
authorities to initiate action as envisaged under Section 3(1)
(ii) of the KAA(P) Act. The learned Public Prosecutor submits
that eight criminal cases in which the detenu had been
involved included offences punishable under Sections 307,
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 9 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
323, 324, 341, 326, 294(b), 308, 447 and 506(ii) of the IPC
read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 27 of
the Arms Act. The said eight cases, according to the learned
Public prosecutor falls under the provisions of Clause 2(p)(iii)
of the KAA(P) Act and the detenu comes under the ambit of
Section 2(t) of the KAA(P) Act which in turn are anti-social
activities falling under Section 2(a) of the Act.
9. It is submitted by the learned Public prosecutor
that the detenu had been subjected to four preventive
detention orders prior to the order impugned in this W.P.
(Crl.). The first order of preventive detention, it is submitted,
was passed against the detenu on 11.07.2018. However, the
same happened to be revoked on 12.09.2018. The second
order of preventive detention was passed on 27.09.2019 and
the detenu was arrested on 05.10.2019 in execution thereof.
While he was undergoing preventive detention, the said order
was also revoked on the ground that the live link between last
prejudicial activity and the detention order stood snapped as
found by the Advisory Board. Thereafter on 20.05.2023, the
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 10 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
third order of preventive detention was passed against the
detenu which order too was also revoked by the Government
Order dated 18.05.2024. The detenu, however, continued to
indulge in criminal activities and Crime No.505 of 2024 of
Kundara Police Station was registered against him on
23.03.2024. Thereupon a proposal for fourth preventive
detention was made by the District Police Chief which was
accepted and the 4th order of preventive detention was
passed on 28.06.2025. The said Order was set aside by this
Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No.1135
of 2024. It is thereafter, that two crimes were registered
against the detenu in 2025 numbered as Crime No.1181 of
2025 and 1571 of 2025 both of Kottiyam Police Station.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that since
the detenu was continuously involved in crimes and the
earlier preventive detention orders were revoked not on
merits, the cases earlier considered were again reported along
with cases registered in 2025 for the 5 th preventive detention
and accepting the said proposal of the District Police Chief
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 11 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
dated 15.09.2025, Exhibit P1 detention order under challenge
had been issued. It is submitted that all the earlier
preventive measures did not deter the detenu from
committing further crimes and it was after examining
carefully the case of the detenu afresh with reference to the
relevant records including the opinion of the Advisory Board
that the Government had confirmed the detention under
Section 10(4) of the KAA(P) Act. The contention that there
was no live and proximate link between the last prejudicial
act and the delay in issuance of the detention order is
denied. It is thus submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that there is no reason to interfere with Exhibits P1 and P2
orders and that the W.P.(Crl.) is only to be dismissed.
11. The learned Public Prosecutor finally contended
that the activities of the detenu squarely fall within the
definition of “anti-social activity” under Section 2(a) of KAA(P)
Act, as such activities are likely to create insecurity, fear and
danger among the public and adversely affect public health
and public order. In the light of the detenu’s persistent
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 12 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
criminal conduct, repeated involvement in offences
notwithstanding the grant of bail and the serious nature of
the NDPS offence, it was submitted that the Detaining
Authority had rightly invoked the provisions of KAA(P) Act
and that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. We have heard both sides in detail and have
considered the respective contentions put forth. We have also
perused the records produced in the sealed envelope which
contains the report of the Advisory Board and connected
documents. We note that the Advisory Board had heard both
sides and had given an opinion that there is sufficient cause
for the detention of the detenu.
13. In the light of the contentions raised, the
following questions arise for our consideration.
(1) Whether there has been inordinate delay leading to the
snapping of the live connection between the last prejudicial activity
and the detention order?
(2) Whether the orders issued and proceedings initiated
against the detenu are vitiated for the reason of non supply of relied
on documents and legible copies of documents.
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 13 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
(3) Whether the non consideration of Ext. P3 representation
preferred by the detenu vitiates the detention rendering Ext. P1 and
P2 legally unsustainable?
14. As regards first the contention that there has been
inordinate delay leading to the snapping of the live connection
between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order, it
is to be noted that from 2017, the detenu had been involved
in 13 criminal cases so far. Of the said 13 cases, 8 cases from
2019 had been considered for the impugned preventive
detention order. The details of the said 8 cases during 2019-
2025 are as hereunder:
Sl Police station Crime No. Date of Status of
No. occurrence detenu1 Kottiyam 278/2019 25/04/19 1st accused
2 Kannanalloor 115/2019 25/04/19 1st accused
3 Adoor 1852/2020 01/06/20 2nd accused
4 Kottiyam 271/2023 21/02/23 1st accused
5 Kottiyam 748/2023 07/05/23 1st accused
6 Kundara 505/2024 23/03/24 1st accused
7 Kottiyam 1181/2025 11/07/25 2nd accused
8 Kottiyam 1571/2025 11/09/25 1st accused
15. The law as to how delay would impact preventive
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 14 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
detention proceedings is now trite and settled. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of
Tripura and others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333] after
examining a catena decisions rendered on the point of
unreasonable delay in detention matters has pithily
concluded the law on the point as follows:
“It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above
decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is
that if there is unreasonable delay between the date
of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu
and in the same manner from the date of the proposal
and passing of the order of detention, such delay
unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable
doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the
detention order and consequently render the detention
order bad and invalid because the “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention and
the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the
detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable
and stands unexplained depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case.” (Emphasis supplied)
16. We note that the last prejudicial activity was
allegedly committed on 11.09.2025 and the detenu was
arrested on 30.09.2025. The proposal had been made before
the commission of the last offence and the Station House
Officer had initiated the action on 14.08.2025 itself. The
District Police Chief made the proposal on 15.09.2025
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 15 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
accepting the report dated 14.08.2025. Thus though the last
offence was committed on 11.09.2025, the same was not
included in the report of proposal. On 26.09.2025, the
detenu obtained bail in the last case, but in case No.6
registered on 11.07.2025 he obtained bail on 30.08.2025.
Thus the last offence was committed by the detenu on
11.09.2025 while he was on bail in case No.6 where the
offence was committed on 11.07.2025. As the last crime was
registered after the proposal made by the District Police Chief
an additional report was submitted on 24.10.2025 regarding
the last case registered on 11.09.2025. On the basis of the
additional report, some additional materials were required by
the District Magistrate and the said materials were furnished
on 02.12.2025. After getting all the required materials, the
District Magistrate passed the order on 16.12.2025. Thus the
additional report dated 24.10.2025 was only regarding the
last crime committed after the proposal by the District Police
Chief and on getting such additional reports, the District
Magistrate called for all necessary papers and details
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 16 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
regarding the last case. It is thereafter that the required
materials were furnished along with additional report dated
02.12.2025. In view of the said chronology of events, it could
not be said that there was any delay in the process. The
preventive detention order though passed on 16.12.2025
could be executed only on 13.02.2026 since the detenu had
absconded from the locality and in such circumstances, the
execution was delayed. There cannot be said that there was
inordinate delay in compliance with the procedure envisaged
under the Act and hence the time taken cannot be said to be
inordinate.
17. The next question to be considered is regarding
the contention that Exhibit P3 representation preferred by the
detenu was not duly considered and disposed of thereby
prejudicially affecting his constitutionally guaranteed rights.
It is relevant in this context to note that the Supreme Court in
K.M.Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 476)]
has observed as follows;
“The time imperative for consideration of representation
can never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the
necessities and the time at which the representation is
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 17 CNR :KLHC0103354120262026:KER:52153
made. The representation may be received before the
case is referred to the advisory board, but there may
not be time to dispose of the representation before
referring the case to the advisory board. In that
situation, the representation must also be forwarded to
the advisory board along with the case of the detenu.
The representation may be received after the case of the
detenu is referred to the board. Even in this situation,
the representation should be forwarded to the advisory
board, provided the board has not concluded the
proceedings. In both the situations, there is no question
of consideration of the representation before the date of
receipt of the report of the advisory board. Nor it could
not be said that the Government had delayed the
consideration of the representation, unnecessarily
awaiting the report of the board. It is proper for the
Government in such situation to await the report of the
board.” (Emphasis supplied)The above view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Golam Biswas v. Union of India and another (2015
KHC 5588). In Rasna v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online
1690] this court has held that inaction on the part of the
respondents in considering such representation submitted by
the detenu against his detention violates Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India, rendering the detention illegal.
18. In the case at hand, it is noted that Exhibit P3
representation was preferred by the petitioner before the first
respondent and the same is dated 19.02.2026. The postal
receipt evidencing the sending of Exhibit P3 as well as the
postal track report, evidencing that the representation was
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 18 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
delivered on 21.02.2026, having produced as Exhibits P4 and
P5 respectively. It is the specific case of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that Exhibit P3 representation was not
considered by the 1st respondent before approval and was not
placed before the fourth respondent, Chairman of the
Advisory Board which rendered its opinion on 27.03.2026.
The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on this count holds merit. A perusal of the
confirmation order reveals that Exhibit P3 representation was
not before the Advisory Board when the detention order was
confirmed. Nothing has been placed before us to disclose the
fate of the representation. The invocation of Article 22 (5) of
the Constitution by the detenu and preferring of the
representation cannot be brushed aside lightly by the
authorities. Such representation mirroring the invocation of a
fundamental right ought to have been duly considered and
acted upon with alacrity. No such course is seen adopted by
the authorities in the case at hand and we are still in the dark
regarding the fate of such representation. Therefore, the
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 19 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
contention of the petitioner that the representation submitted
by the detenu was not considered by the Government and
that the impugned orders vitiate the rights guaranteed under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution rendering the detention illegal
and unsustainable is valid and tenable.
19. Now proceeding to consider the third and last
contention put forth by the petitioner that copies of all the
documents relied on were not provided and that those copies
provided were not legible, the petitioner has relied upon the
decision in the case of Sneha Vijayan (supra), wherein it was
observed as follows:
“9. The obligation of the detaining authority to furnish
legible copies of relied – upon documents to the detenu
is not a mere formality. Only when the said procedure is
scrupulously complied with, the detenu can file an
effective representation before theAdvisory Board and
the Government. The right of the detenue to file an
effective representation before the Government as well
as the Advisory Board is a constitutional right under
Art.22(5) and also a statutory right. Therefore, it is the
duty of the detaining authority to ensure that the copies
of the impugned order as well as the relevant
documents which are furnished to the detenu at the
time of effecting his arrest are legible so as to enable
him to approach the Advisory Board as well as the
Government, to make an effective representation.
…………………..
11. It is trite that something more than mere
registration of an FIR is required to reckon a case that is
under investigation, for the purpose of passing a
detention order. In other words, apart from the FIR,
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 20 CNR :KLHC0103354120262026:KER:52153
there must be some additional materials to make a case
qualified to be reckoned for passing a detention order.
As already discussed, on verification by the Court, it is
revealed that the copy of the records, including vital
documents like FIS, mahazar etc., verified by the
detaining authority during the course of its proceedings
are not legible. The copies of the said documents
furnished to the detenu are also established to be
illegible. Therefore, the objective as well as the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining
authority is apparently vitiated. As rightly pointed out
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is
eschewed from consideration, there would be a long
delay between the registration of the last qualified case
and the order of detention. On the said ground, Ext.P1
order warrants interference. 13. In the case at hand, it
is established that the copies supplied on the detenu
were not legible making him incapacitatedto file an
effective representation. The said serious lapse is a
ground to interfere with the impugned order. An order of
detention, under KAA(P) Act has wide ramifications as
far as the personal as well as the fundamental rights of
an individual are concerned. Therefore, the detaining
authority should have acted with much alacrity in
ensuring that all the procedural formalities are adhered
to.” (emphasis supplied)
20. The contention regarding the supply of illegible
documents, is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor
pointing out that the same is devoid of merit as at the time of
execution of the detention order, the detenu had
acknowledged receipt of legible and readable copies of the
relied-upon documents. It was further argued that the detenu
had thereafter submitted an effective representation before
the Government, which itself demonstrated that no prejudice
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 21 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
had been caused to him on account of any alleged illegibility
of documents. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore,
contended that there was no violation of the constitutional
safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
of India. He places reliance on the decision in Usha Agarwal
v. Union of India and others [(2007) 1 SCC 295] and Molly
v. State of Kerala and others [W.P.(Crl.) No.133 of 2021]
contend that unless actual prejudice is established, the
detention order cannot be invalidated on the ground of alleged
defects in the copies supplied to the detenu. The relevant
paragraph relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor in the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Usha Agarwal
(supra) is reproduced below:
“19. The High Court has examined the copies that were
furnished to the detenu. In regard to the grievance
relating to illegible copies occurring between pp. 493
and 887 and the last page, the High Court found that
these were copies of the documents which were
supplied by the detenu himself, and the Department
could do no better than to furnish the copies thereof. If
the documents furnished by the detenu to the
Department contained some portions or pages which
were illegible, obviously the copies thereof furnished by
the detaining authority to the detenu will also contain
such illegible portions. The learned counsel for the
appellant contended that if really any document
furnished by the detenu was illegible, it could not have
been used against the detenu. But this contention
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 22 CNR :KLHC0103354120262026:KER:52153
overlooks the fact that a document may contain several
sheets and illegibility of some sheets or parts of some
sheets will not come in the way of the authorities
making use of the legible portions of the documents
furnished by the detenu, supplemented by other
documents secured during investigation. There is
nothing strange in the Department making use of
partially legible documents furnished by detenu.
Therefore, illegibility of portions of documents which are
copies of documents furnished by the detenu, cannot be
a ground for grievance by the detenu. Insofar as the
allegation that some of the sheets between pp. 124 to
371B were illegible is concerned, the High Court after
having gone through the copies of documents furnished
to the detenu, has found no substance in the contention.
In fact, while acknowledging the copies of documents,
the detenu has made an endorsement that they were
legible. 20. The entire issue of furnishing of illegible
copies is with reference to the question whether the
detenu’s right to make an effective representation
against his detention is hampered by non-supply of
legible copies. The High Court after an examination of
the copies of documents found that the detenu was not
so hampered. Having gone through the representations
made by the detenu against his detention, we also find
that he was in no way hampered by the fact that a few
of the sheets/copies of documents were partly illegible.
We, therefore, find no merit in the second contention,
nor any reason to interfere with the finding of the High
Court in this behalf.”
21. Similarly, the relevant paragraphs in the case of
Molly (supra) reads as follows:
“11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a
contention that certain documents served on the
detenu were illegible copies and the specific pages
were referred to. The reference made is concerning
Crime Nos.2849/2016 and 1435/2019. In this
context we are of the opinion none of these be
reckoned, since for preventive detention of one year
following earlier detention under KAA(P)A; there need
be only one crime registered as is required under
S.13(2). After revocation or expiry of a detention order
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 23 CNR :KLHC0103354120262026:KER:52153
if the detenu continues to be a ‘known goonda’ or
‘known rowdy’ under S.2(o) or S.2(p), then under
S.13(2) and if he is involved in one single offence of
the nature described in S.2(o) or (p), under Section
13(2)(i); there can be a subsequent detention order. In
the circumstance under S.13(2)(i), the period can also
extend upto one year as per S.12. In the present case,
there is also a conviction entered for the offence
committed after the earlier detention and there are
numerous crimes committed by the detenu. S.7(4)
provides that the order of detention shall not be
deemed to be invalid because one or more of the facts
or circumstances cited among the grounds are vague,
non-existent, irrelevant or invalid for any reason
whatsoever. The illegible copies if rendering invalid
for consideration the two crimes referred; even then
the remaining facts legitimize the detention. We
reiterate that there is only need for one such offence
after the earlier detention and in the present case
there are six other cases registered. Even if the two
crimes above referred are eschewed, there are six
other crimes registered and also one conviction in one
of such crimes registered, subsequent to the earlier
detention.”
22 . In the case at hand the original file had been called
for and perused jointly in court. The pages of the documents
supplied which are illegible have been identified by the
learned counsel for the petitioner from the original file in the
presence of the learned Public Prosecutor. It was clearly
admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that some of the
pages of the relevant documents were illegible. We have
inspected the original file, and find that the contention of the
petitioner regarding the illegibility of such documents thereby
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 24 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
preventing him from making proper and effective
representation is clearly established. It is trite law that the
Detaining Authority is required to supply legible copies in
order to enable the detenu to make an effective
representation. In view of the above, we find merit in the
contention put forth by the petitioner’s counsel that the
detenu had been incapacitated by such non compliance and
that his interests had been prejudicially affected by the fact
that illegible copies were provided to him. The detention of the
detenu is bad on the said count too.
The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the
detention of the husband of the petitioner is not in
accordance with the mandates of law and hence cannot be
sustained. Exhibits P1 and P2 orders are liable to be set aside
and it is hereby ordered so. The 7 threspondent Superintendent
of Jail, Central Jail, Poojapura is hereby directed to set the
said detenu viz., Nishad H., S/o.Haris, Vilayil Puthen Veettil,
Thazhuthala Chery, Adichanelloor, Kollam, Pin-691 571, free
forthwith if his detention is not required in any other matter.
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 25 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
The Registry shall communicate this to the 7 th respondent by
email at once. The report in the sealed cover shall be returned
to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor forthwith.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
WP(CRL.) NO.711 OF 2026 26 CNR :KLHC010335412026
2026:KER:52153
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 711 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DCKLM/13260/2025-M-
16 DATED 16.12.2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT).NO.1282/2026/HOME
DATED 06.04.2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.02.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING
THE EXT P3
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL TRACK REPORT
Exhibit P1 Translation of Exhibit P1
Exhibit P3 Translation of Exhibit P3
