Kerala High Court
Ambika Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2026
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 1 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
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 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO.651 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
AMBIKA MOHANAN,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O MOHANAN, PARATHATTAYIL HOUSE, AIRAPURAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683541
BY ADV SRI.AJEESH M UMMER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION PATTIMATTOM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683562
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ERNAKULAM RURAL, PIN - 682039
5 THE CHAIRMAN,
ADVISORY BOARD, KAA(P)A, SREENIVAS,
PADAM ROAD,VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 682026
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 2 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL,
CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR, PIN - 670004
BY ADVS.
SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 3 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of
detention dated 8th January 2026 passed against one Manu
Mohan, (the detenu), aged 27 years, under Section 3(1) of the
Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P)A
for brevity]. The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu.
The said order of detention was confirmed by the Government
u/s 10(4) of KAA(P)A vide order dated 12th March 2026, and
the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of
one year, from the date of detention.
2. The detention order No.DCEKM/14382/2025-M7
dated 08.01.2026 was issued on the basis of a proposal
submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural on
22nd November 2025 alleging that the detenu was involved in
following criminal incidents:
Crime No. Police Station Offences involved Date of
under Section Occurrence2483/2025 Muvattupuzha 331(3),305(a) of 30.10.2025
BNS
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 4 CNR : KLHC0103026220262026:KER:54600
146/2020 Kuruppampady 457 & 380 of IPC 21.02.2020
212/2023 Muvattupuzha 379 of IPC 29.01.2023
353/2023 Muvattupuzha 379 of IPC 17.02.2023
358/2023 Muvattupuzha 379 of IPC 11.02.2023
407/2023 Muvattupuzha 379 of IPC 27.01.2023
408/2023 Muvattupuzha 379 of IPC 05.02.2023
89/2024 Kodanad 380 & 34 of IPC 08.02.2024
161/2024 Kalady 380 & 34 of IPC 14.01.2024
460/2024 Perumbavoor 380 & 457 of IPC 29.03.2024
01.04.20241183/2024 Angamaly 379 of IPC 07.04.2024
13.05.2024
3. Among the above criminal incidents relied upon
by the Detaining Authority, the last prejudicial anti-social
activity allegedly committed by the detenu was on 30th
October 2025 in Crime No.2483 of 2025 of Muvattupuzha
Police Station, registered under Sections 331(3) and 305(a) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The detenu was arrested
in connection with the said crime on 8th November 2025 and
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 5 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
was remanded to judicial custody on 9th November 2025. A
bail application filed by the detenu before the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, in C.M.P.No.3464 of
2025 was dismissed on 27th November 2025. Thereafter, the
detenu preferred Bail Application No. 14289/2025 before this
Court, which was also dismissed by order dated 11th
December 2025.
4. On consideration of the proposal submitted by the
District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, the Detaining
Authority passed the order of detention on 8th January 2026,
which was executed by arresting the detenu on 12th January
2026.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged
the detention order on several grounds. The first and the
foremost submission is that all the criminal incidents referred
to by the detaining authority relate only to private disputes
and personal offences, none of which involve any disturbance
of public order, so as to justify preventive detention under the
KAA(P)A.
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 6 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
6. The second ground of challenge is that the last
prejudicial activity, namely, Crime No.2483/2025 of
Muvattupuzha Police Station, occurred on 30th October 2025,
while the crime was registered only on 8 th November 2025, on
which date the detenu was arrested and the statements of all
the witnesses were recorded. The detenu was subsequently
released on bail, subject to stringent conditions.
7. The third ground of challenge was that the
detaining authority had failed to apply its mind to the facts of
the last prejudicial activity. According to the petitioner,
although the allegation pertains to the theft of a battery from
a used vehicle showroom on 30 th October 2025, the incident
was reported only after an unexplained delay of eight days,
casting doubt on the prosecution case. It is further contended
that the subsequent investigation also indicates that the case
was falsely foisted to facilitate the preventive detention of the
detenu, particularly since he was arrested on the very day the
crime was registered and the statements of the witnesses
were also recorded.
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 7 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
8. The fourth ground of challenge is that the
detaining authority has failed to apply its mind to the fact
that the detenu had already been released on bail subject to
stringent conditions, including a stipulation that any
violation would entail cancellation of bail.
9. On the question of delay, it is submitted that the
live and proximate link between the last prejudicial activity
and the detention order stands snapped, as the last incident
occurred on 30th October 2025, the First information report
was registered on 8th November 2025, and the sponsoring
authority submitted its proposal only on 15th November
2025, without offering any explanation for the delay. It is also
contended that, since the detaining authority had relied upon
CCTV footage to conclude the detenu’s involvement in the last
crime, a copy of the said footage, being a vital document,
ought to have been supplied to the detenu. The failure to
furnish the same, according to the learned counsel, vitiates
the detention order.
10. The last submission made by the petitioner is
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 8 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
that the detention order fails to record the fact that there is
no real apprehension in the mind of sponsoring authority
that there is likelihood of repeating any act prejudicial to the
public order.
11. Per contra, the learned Senior Government
Pleader, by way of a memo dated 17th July 2026 has placed
on record the statement of facts on behalf of the 1st
Respondent furnished by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department and submits that the detenu was rightly
classified as a ‘Known Rowdy’ under Sections 2(p)(iii) read
with Sections 2(t)(i) and 2(t)(ii) of the KAAP(A), as the offences
relied upon are punishable with imprisonment for a term of
one year or more. It was contended that the Detaining
Authority had arrived at the requisite objective satisfaction on
the basis of the materials placed before it and had validly
exercised the power of preventive detention.
12. It was further submitted that all the mandatory
procedural requirements prescribed under the KAA(P)A had
been strictly complied with. The detention order was
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 9 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
forthwith reported to the Government, the detenu was
informed of his right to make a representation against the
order of detention, and copies of the grounds of detention
together with the relied-upon documents were duly furnished
to him. Hence, there was no violation of either the statutory
provisions or the constitutional safeguards available to the
detenu.
13. With regard to the challenge based on delay, it
was contended that the last prejudicial activity was
committed on 30th October 2025 and the order of detention
was passed on 8th January 2026. According to the
respondents, the interval was neither unreasonable nor
sufficient to snap the live and proximate link between the
prejudicial activities of the detenu and the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.
14. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
submitted that the detention order was placed before the
Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The Advisory Board, after considering the records and
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 10 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
hearing the detenu and his counsel, opined that there existed
sufficient cause for the continued detention of the detenu.
Based on the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government
confirmed the order of detention in accordance with law.
15. The merits of the detention order requires
consideration taking into consideration the submission made
on behalf of the parties and original record produced by the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
16. As regards the first ground of challenge raised by
the petitioner that all the alleged activities relied upon by the
detaining authority pertain only to private disputes and do
not warrant an order of preventive detention under the
KAA(P)A, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v.
Delhi Administration1, wherein it was held that the true
distinction between the areas of “public order” and “law and
order” lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the
degree and extent of its reach upon society. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as follows:
1AIR 1982 SC 1143
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 11 CNR : KLHC0103026220262026:KER:54600
“13. The true distinction between the areas of
“public order” and “law and order” lies not in the
nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and
extent of its reach upon society. The distinction
between the two concepts of “law and order” and
“public order” is a fine one but this does not mean
that there can be no overlapping. Acts similar in
nature but committed in different contexts and
circumstances might cause different reactions. In
one case it might affect specific individuals only
and therefore touch the problem of law and order,
while in another it might affect public order. The act
by itself therefore is not determinant of its own
gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the
even tempo of the life of the community which
makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. That test is clearly fulfilled in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In Angoori Devi v. Union of India2 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that:
“12. The impact on “public order” and “law and
order” depends upon the nature of the act, the place
where it is committed and motive force behind it. If
the act is confined to an individual without directly
or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the
community, it may be a matter of law and order
only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise
and likely to endanger the public tranquility, it may
fall within the orbit of the public order. This is
precisely the distinguishing feature between the two
concepts. Sometimes, as observed by
Venkatachaliah, J. in Ayya alias Ayub v. State of
U.P: “What might be an otherwise simple ‘law and
order’ situation might assume the gravity and
mischief of a ‘public order’ problem by reason alone
of the manner or circumstances in which or the place
at which it is carried out.”. Necessarily, much
depends upon the nature of the act, the place where2(1989) 1 SCC 385
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 12 CNR : KLHC0103026220262026:KER:54600
it is committed and the sinister significance attached
to it. (emphasis supplied)
18. The interpretation of the term ‘public order’ by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent,
Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia3, is as follows:
“Public order” is synonymous with public safety and
tranquillity : it is the absence of disorder involving
breaches of local significance in contradistinction to
national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife,
war, affecting the security of the State.”
19. In the instant case, the question that has to
be considered is whether the criminal incidents relied
upon by the detaining authority for passing an order of
detention under the KAA(P)A falls within the domain of
‘public order’ or ‘law and order’.
20. In examining this question, it is necessary to
advert to the statutory scheme of the KAA(P)A. Section 2(a) of
the said Act defines the expression “anti-social activity” to
mean acting in such a manner as to cause, or be likely to
cause, directly or indirectly, any feeling of insecurity, danger
or fear among the general public or any section thereof, or
3AIR 1960 SC 633
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 13 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
any danger to the safety of individuals, public safety, public
health or the ecological system, or any loss or damage to the
public exchequer or to any public or private property, besides
indulging in the activities enumerated in clauses (c), (e), (g),
(h), (i), (l), (m), (n), (q), (qb) and (s) of the said Section.
21. While Section 2(a) defines the expression “anti-
social activity”, Section 2(t) defines the expression “rowdy” as
follows:
“‘rowdy’ means and includes a person who either by
himself or as a member of a gang commits or
attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any
offences under Sections 153A and 153B of Chapter
VIII and Chapters XV, XVI, XVII & XXII of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860), or any
offences under the provision of the Arms Act, 1959
(Central Act 54 of 1959), or the Explosives
Substances Act, 1908 (Central Act 6 of 1908)-”
(i) punishable with five or more years of
imprisonment of any type, or ;
(ii) with less than five years of imprisonment of any
type, except those punishable with less than one
year of imprisonment ; or
(iii) such offences under any other law for the time
being in force, coming under item (i) or (ii), as may be
notified by the Government, from time to time.”
22. On consideration of the materials placed on
record it could be seen that all the crimes relied upon by the
detaining authority for passing the detention order
predominantly relate to offences of theft, house-breaking and
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 14 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
lurking house trespass. The detenu has a history of
repeatedly involving himself in such offences, and the
incidents cannot be regarded as isolated or stray occurrences.
Such repeated involvement in property offences, particularly
those involving trespass into residential houses and
commercial establishments, cannot be viewed as mere
individual disputes. By their very nature and frequency, such
activities have the tendency to create a sense of insecurity
and fear amongst members of the public regarding the safety
of their persons and properties.
23. The repeated criminal activities attributed to the
detenu clearly establishes his habitual criminal conduct that
are capable of disturbing the even tempo of life of the
community as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Angoori
Devi (Supra) and also creates a feeling of insecurity among
the public, thereby attracting the definition of “anti-social
activity” under Section 2(a) of KAA(P)A.
24. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 15 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
offences relied upon for the detention of the detenu are purely
private in nature and do not have any bearing on the
maintenance of public order.
25. The next grounds urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is regarding the alleged delay in forwarding
the proposal for preventive detention by the sponsoring
authority and the subsequent delay in executing the order of
detention.
26. From the materials placed on record, it is seen
that the last prejudicial activity relied upon by the Detaining
Authority occurred on 30th October 2025 in Crime No.
2483/2025 of Muvattupuzha Police Station. The detenu was
arrested in connection with the said crime on 8th November
2025. The sponsoring authority submitted the proposal for
preventive detention on 22nd November 2025. Upon
consideration of the proposal and the materials placed before
it, the Detaining Authority passed the order of detention on
8th January 2026, which was executed on 12th January
2026. Thus, there was a gap of about 15 days between the
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 16 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
last prejudicial activity and the submission of the proposal,
and a further period of about 47 days between the proposal
and passing of the order of detention.
27. The question of delay in preventive detention
matters is no longer res integra. It is trite as has been laid
down in a catena of decisions that delay, by itself, is not a
determinative factor in matters of preventive detention. What
is relevant is whether the delay has been satisfactorily
explained and whether, by reason of such delay, the live and
proximate nexus between the prejudicial activities of the
detenu and the necessity for preventive detention has been
snapped.
28. While dealing with the question of delay, it is
also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Licil Antony v. State of Kerala4
wherein it was observed as follows:
” 9. …………..While dealing with the question of
delay in making an order of detention, the court is
required to be circumspect and has to take a
pragmatic view. No hard-and-fast formula is possible
to be laid or has been laid in this regard. However,
one thing is clear that in case of delay, that has to be
4(2014) 11 SCC 326
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 17 CNR : KLHC0103026220262026:KER:54600
satisfactorily explained. After all, the purpose of
preventive detention is to take immediate steps for
preventing the detenu from indulging in prejudicial
activity. If there is undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activity and making of the order of
detention and the delay has not been explained, the
order of detention becomes vulnerable. Delay in
issuing the order of detention, if not satisfactorily
explained, itself is a ground to quash the order of
detention. No rule with precision has been formulated
in this regard. The test of proximity is not a rigid or a
mechanical test. In case of undue and long delay the
court has to investigate whether the link has been
broken in the circumstances of each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
29. Similarly in Adishwar Jain v. Union of India,5
it was held that:
“15. Delay, as is well known, at both stages
has to be explained. The court is required to consider
the question having regard to the overall picture. We
may notice that in Sk. Serajul v. State of W.B. [(1975) 2
SCC 78 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 425] this Court opined: (SCC
p. 80, para 2)
“There was thus delay at both stages and this
delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw
considerable doubt on the genuineness of the
subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate,
Burdwan recited in the order of detention. It would
be reasonable to assume that if the District
Magistrate of Burdwan was really and genuinely
satisfied after proper application of mind to the
materials before him that it was necessary to detain
the petitioner with a view to preventing him from
acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted
with greater promptitude both in making the order of
detention as also in securing the arrest of the
petitioner, and the petitioner would not have been
allowed to remain at large for such a long period of
time to carry on his nefarious activities.”
5(2006) 11 SCC 339
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 18 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
(emphasis supplied)
30. It is well settled that the prejudicial activities
relied upon must bear a live and proximate nexus with the
order of detention. If there is undue and unexplained delay in
passing the order, such delay may, in a given case, have the
effect of snapping the nexus between the prejudicial activities
and the purpose sought to be achieved by the detention. On
the other hand, where the delay is satisfactorily explained by
the time consumed in investigation, collection of materials,
administrative processing, scrutiny by the sponsoring and
screening authorities, and consideration by the Government,
the detention order cannot be invalidated merely on the
ground of lapse of time.
31. In the case at hand, while considering the
purported delay and the alleged snapping of live link between
the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention, it is to
be noted that the said delay in submitting the proposal and
passing the detention order is not satisfactorily explained by
the detaining authority thereby snapping the nexus between
the prejudicial activities and the purpose sought to be
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 19 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
achieved by the detention.
32. Thus, the delay of about 61 days in passing the
detention order, reckoned from the date of arrest of the
detenu on 8th November 2025 till the passing of the
detention order on 8th January 2026, assumes significance
in the facts of the present case. Though the sponsoring
authority forwarded the proposal within about 15 days of the
arrest of the detenu, there is an unexplained delay of about
47 days thereafter in passing the order of detention.
33. The detention order placed on record does not
furnish any satisfactory explanation for the time consumed
during the said period. No particulars have been placed
before this Court to indicate that the delay was occasioned on
account of any justifiable reason. Failure to explain such
delay casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the
subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority
and renders the order of detention vulnerable to judicial
review.
34. The next issue for consideration before us is
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 20 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
whether the Detaining Authority failed to apply its mind to
the facts in the last prejudicial activity. According to the
petitioner, although the alleged theft of batteries from a used
vehicle showroom is stated to have occurred on 30th October
2025, the crime came to be registered only on 8th November
2025, after an unexplained delay of eight days. It is
contended that this unexplained delay in lodging the First
Information Report casts serious doubt on the genuineness of
the prosecution case. The learned counsel further submitted
that the circumstances of the investigation, particularly the
arrest of the detenu on the very day of registration of the
crime and the recording of the statements of the witnesses
thereafter, strengthen the contention that the case was falsely
foisted with a view to facilitate the preventive detention of the
detenu.
35. It was further submitted that the Detaining
Authority has relied upon the CCTV footage allegedly showing
the detenu arriving at the scene on a scooter bearing
Registration No. KL-41-F-6314 and committing the theft. The
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 21 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
Detaining Authority has also relied upon the statement of one
Naushad, who is alleged to have identified the detenu as the
person who sold the stolen batteries, as well as the seizure of
the scooter purportedly used in the commission of the
offence. According to the learned counsel, once the subjective
satisfaction is founded upon the CCTV footage, the said
footage constitutes a vital relied-upon document, and the
failure to furnish a copy thereof to the detenu has deprived
him of his constitutional right to make an effective
representation against the order of detention.
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Icchu Devi
Choraria v. Union of India6, has held that where the order
of detention refers to or relies upon any document, statement
or other material, copies thereof must necessarily be supplied
to the detenu to enable him to make an effective
representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India.
37. In the instant case, a perusal of the grounds of
detention unmistakably shows that the Detaining Authority
6(1980) 4 SCC 531
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 22 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
has specifically relied upon the CCTV footage to conclude that
the detenu arrived at the scene on his scooter bearing
Registration No. KL-41-F-6314 and committed the alleged
theft. The CCTV footage is not referred to merely as a part of
the investigation, but has been expressly relied upon as a
material circumstance in arriving at the subjective
satisfaction. The CCTV footage, therefore, constitutes a vital
relied-upon document.
38. The materials placed before this Court do not
disclose that a copy of the CCTV footage was either supplied
or made available for inspection by the detenu. In the
absence of such supply, the detenu was deprived of the
opportunity to verify its authenticity, correctness and
evidentiary value, and consequently, was denied an effective
opportunity to make a meaningful representation against the
order of detention. The non-supply of a vital relied-upon
document amounts to a violation of the constitutional
safeguard guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
and vitiates the subjective satisfaction recorded by the
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 23 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
Detaining Authority.
] 39. Accordingly, we hold that the failure to furnish
the CCTV footage, which admittedly forms one of the
foundational materials relied upon by the Detaining
Authority, has caused prejudice to the detenu and has
rendered the impugned order of detention legally
unsustainable. The detention order is, therefore, liable to be
set aside on this ground.
40. Although we have found no merit in the
contention of the petitioner that the offences relied upon by
the Detaining Authority are purely private in nature and do
not affect public order, we are satisfied that the challenge to
the impugned order of detention succeeds on the other
grounds. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have failed
to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay in
passing the order of detention, thereby snapping the live and
proximate nexus between the prejudicial activities of the
detenu and the necessity for invoking the power of preventive
detention. Further, the failure to furnish the CCTV footage,
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 24 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
which admittedly constituted a vital relied-upon document
forming the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the
Detaining Authority, has deprived the detenu of his
constitutional right to make an effective representation under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
41. In the present case, the unexplained delay in
passing the detention order, coupled with the non-supply of a
vital relied-upon document, renders the subjective
satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority legally
unsustainable.
42. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and
Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of
Central Prison, Kannur, is directed to release the detenu,
Sri. Manu Mohan, forthwith, if his detention is not required
in connection with any other case.
43. The Registry is directed to communicate the
order to the Superintendent of Central Prison,Kannur,
forthwith.
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 25 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
44. The records produced in the sealed cover shall
be returned to the learned Senior Government Pleader.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.
JUDGE
Gw/csl
WP(CRL.) NO.651/2026 26 CNR : KLHC010302622026
2026:KER:54600
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 651 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
DCEKM/14382/2025-M7 DATED 08.01.2026 ALONG
WITH REASONS FOR ORDER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS DATED
08.11.2025 AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
CRIME 2483/2025 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE
STATION SUPPLIED TO THE DETENUE AS SUCH
