Kerala High Court
Binshad vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 1 2026:KER:48312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 944 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
BINSHAD
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O GULAM MUHAMMED @ GULAM RASOOL,
PADIYATH HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY DESHAM,
VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE,
VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION LIMIT,
THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680721
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MANUMON A.
SHRI.REBIN VINCENT GRALAN
SHRI.SURESH C.
SMT.ANJU M. LOHIDHAKSHAN
SMT.ABIDA P.
SMT.EDATHARA VINEETA KRISHNAN
SMT.DISSY M. D.
SHRI.SANTHOSH.T.P
SMT.ROSNA M. JOY
SMT.GAYATHRI E.S.
SHRI.AVIN KRISHNA M.P.
SMT.ATHIRA SURESH
SMT.DILJEE GIRIJAN
SHRI.JOHN CHRISTO T.P.
SHRI.AKSHAY KUMAR C.S.
SMT.LINIYA LOVESON
SMT.ANJALI N.S.
SMT.MARIYA LOOVIS
SMT.ALEESHA K. S.
SMT.REFA
SMT.VIDYA V.
SHRI.ATHULKRISHNA T. U.
SMT.GOPIKA K. P.
SMT.MAHESWARY S.
RESPONDENTS:
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 2 2026:KER:48312
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695001,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKUALM, PIN - 682031
2 SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 695001
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD,
KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680003
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680125
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. REEHA KHADER K., SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 3 2026:KER:48312
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner has filed this W.P.(Crl), invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking an order to grant temporary
release to the petitioner for 15 days from 22.06.2026, to attend
the ceremonies and functions relating to his brother’s marriage.
2. On 23.06.2026, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file a
counter affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent State, within a
week.
3. Along with a memo dated 29.06.2026, filed by the
learned Senior Government Pleader, a statement dated
27.06.2026 of the 4th respondent District Police Chief, Thrissur
Rural, which is one filed on behalf of all the respondents, is
placed on record.
4. On 02.07.2026, when this writ petition came up for
consideration, this Court passed the following order;
“This W.P.(Crl.) is one filed on 19.06.2026, seeking an
order to grant temporary release of the petitioner, who is
under preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, for a period of 15 days
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 4 2026:KER:48312from 22.06.2026, to attend the ceremonies and functions
relating to his brother’s marriage. The document marked
as Ext.P1 is a memo dated 08.08.2025 of the District
Magistrate for executing the order of detention under the
said Act. Ext.P2 is a copy of the invitation card of the
marriage of the petitioner’s brother; Ext.P3 is the copy of
Aadhaar card of the petitioner’s brother; Ext.P4 is a copy
of the representation dated 17.06.2026 made before the
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home
Department; and Ext.P5 is a copy of the postal receipt
issued by the Department of Posts. Immediately after the
submission of Ext.P4 representation dated 17.06.2026, the
petitioner has chosen to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, by filing this W.P.(Crl.).
2. On 23.06.2026, when this W.P.(Crl.) came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed
to file a counter affidavit on behalf of the 1 st respondent
State, within one week and matter was ordered to be listed
today.
3. Along with a memo dated 29.06.2026 filed by the
learned Senior Government Pleader, a statement dated
27.06.2026 of the 4th respondent District Police Chief is
placed on record. In page No.3 of that statement, the
details of the crimes registered against the petitioner, 23 in
number, are furnished. The said memo was filed by the
learned Senior Government Pleader on 29.06.2026.
4. On 01.07.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has filed a memo dated 01.07.2026 seeking an order to
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 5 2026:KER:48312permit the petitioner to withdraw this W.P.(Crl.) as
infructuous.
List this matter tomorrow (03.07.2026).”
5. Heard arguments of Adv. Rebin Vincent Gralan, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Senior
Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. It is averred in the first paragraph of the statement of
facts of this writ petition that the petitioner is aggrieved by
Ext.P1 detention order, issued against him under Sections 3(1),
13(2)(i) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
2007 [KAA(P) Act], by the 3rd respondent District Collector and
District Magistrate, Thrissur, whereby he is under preventive
detention. However, the document marked as Ext.P1 in this writ
petition is a copy of the memo for executing the order of
detention, bearing No:DCTSR 9503/2025-C4 dated 08.08.2025
issued by the 3rd respondent.
7. From the statement dated 27.06.2026 filed by the 4th
respondent District Police Chief, Thrissur, we notice that, in the
year 2022, as per order No.C1-6247/2022 dated 29.08.2022 of
the 3rd respondent District Magistrate, issued under Section 3(1)
of the KAA(P) Act, the petitioner was placed under preventive
detention for a period of six months. He was also remanded to
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 6 2026:KER:48312
judicial custody, in connection with Crime No.312/2022 of
Kattoor Police Station, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324,
392, 294(b), 506, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After
completing the period of preventive detention under KAA(P) Act
and following his acquittal in Crime No.312/2022 on 03.03.2025,
he was released from prison.
8. In the statement dated 27.06.2026 filed by the 4th
respondent, it is stated that, after release from prison, the
petitioner continued to be actively involved in anti-social
activities. As per order No.DCTSR-9503/2025-C4 dated
08.08.2025, the petitioner is again under preventive detention,
with effect from 13.08.2025. The order of detention under
Section 3(1) of KAA(P) Act was subsequently confirmed by the
1st respondent State, vide G.O.(Rt)No.3494/2025/HOME dated
14.10.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner has been kept under
preventive detention for a period of 1 year, from 13.08.2025 to
12.08.2026. The details of cases registered against the
petitioner, as furnished in page No.3 of the statement filed by the
4th respondent, are as follows;
Sl. Police Station Crime No. and Sections
No.
1 Vadanappilly 413/2007 U/s 341, 324, IPC
2 Vadanappilly 182/2008 U/s 341, 323, 324, 34 IPC
3 Vadanappilly 720/2008 U/s 341, 323, 324, 354, 307, 452, 34 IPC
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 7 2026:KER:48312
4 Vadanappilly 340/2010 U/s 27 of Arms Act
5 Vadanappilly 588/2010 U/s 341, 323, 324 IPC
6 Vadanappilly 959/2011 U/s 341, 323, 294(B), 506(i), 34 IPC
7 Vadanappilly 1268/2012 U/s 394 IPC
8 Vadanappilly 532/2013 U/s 143, 147, 323, 324, 452, 308 r/w 149 IPC
9 Vadakkekkad 629/2017 U/s 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323, 324, 354,
427, 506(i), r/w 149 IPC
10. Vadanappilly 95/2018 U/s 341, 294(b), 308, 427 IPC
11. Chavakkad 399/2018 U/s 324 IPC
12. Vadanappilly 696/2019 U/s 117(e) KP Act
13. Vadanappilly 705/2019 U/s 363, 341, 323, 370, 377, 506(i), 34 IPC & 4
r/w 3(a)(d), 17 r/w 16 of POCSO Act & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
PO Act 2015
14. Viyyur 110/2020 U/s 324 IPC & 81(7)
Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act
15. Vadanappilly 1234/2020 U/s 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 34 IPC
16. Vadakkekkad 07/2021 U/s 452, 427, 294(B), 506(ii), 34 IPC
17. Vadakkekkad 11/2021 U/s 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 149 IPC
18. Vadakkekkad 57/2021 U/s 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 506(ii), 308, 201,
149 IPC
19. Vadanappilly 292/2022 U/s 20(B)IIA NDPS Act
20. Cherpu 321/2022 U/s 447, 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506(i), 34 IPC
21. Kattoor 312/2022 U/s 341, 323, 324, 392, 294(b), 506, 307, 34
IPC
22. Kattoor 598/2025 U/s 351(3), 126(2), 296(b), 111(2), 3(5) BNS
23. Vadanappilly 621/2025 U/s 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 111, 61(2), 140(3),
127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 310(2), 351(2), 296(b), 190
BNS
9. In the statement filed by the 4th respondent, it is
stated that, on the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 for
granting temporary release, for a period of 15 days from
22.06.2026, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry revealed
that petitioner’s parents currently reside at the family home. His
brothers are employed abroad. His married sisters are residing in
their matrimonial homes. Neither the father nor any other family
member has taken steps to secure parole for the petitioner. It
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 8 2026:KER:48312
was reported that they have no interest in the petitioner
attending the wedding. Various other aspects have also been
pointed out in the statement filed by the 4th respondent,
opposing the petitioner’s request for grant of temporary release.
We do not propose to consider those aspects in this writ petition.
10. During the course of arguments, the submission made
by Adv. Rebin Vincent Gralan is that Adv. Manumon A., who was
instructed by the petitioner’s father to file this writ petition, filed
the memo dated 01.07.2026, seeking permission to withdraw
the writ petition as it has become infructuous. On the aforesaid
submission made by the learned counsel, we notice the
declaration made in the memo of appearance dated 19.06.2026
filed by Adv. Manumon A. and Adv. V.M. Vinosh, that they have
been duly authorised by the petitioner (Binshad) to file this
application, appear and plead before this Court. In a separate
sheet attached to the memo of appearance, which is also
captioned as ‘memo of appearance’, Adv. Rebin Vincent Gralan
and 22 other advocates have affixed their signature. The said
sheet does not even bear a date.
11. As pointed out by the learned Senior Government
Pleader, the petitioner was under preventive detention, as per
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 9 2026:KER:48312
the order dated 29.08.2022 of the 3rd respondent District
Magistrate, issued under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, for a
period of six months. Thereafter, as per order dated 08.08.2025
of the 3rd respondent, issued under Section 3(1) of KAA(P) Act,
the petitioner has been kept under preventive detention for a
period of 1 year, from 13.08.2025 to 12.08.2026.
12. As already noticed hereinbefore, though it is averred
in the first paragraph of the statement of facts of this writ
petition that the petitioner is aggrieved by the detention order
Ext.P1, issued under Section 3(1), 13(2)(i) of KAA(P) Act, dated
08.08.2025, by the 3rd respondent District Collector and District
Magistrate, the document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the
memo dated 08.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent for
executing the order of detention. During the course of
arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not offer
any satisfactory explanation for not producing the order of
detention dated 08.08.2025 in this writ petition. The learned
counsel could not also offer any satisfactory explanation for not
disclosing the previous order of detention in this writ petition.
13. In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana
[(1995) 3 SCC 757], the Apex Court held that filing of false
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 10 2026:KER:48312
affidavit, or making false statement on oath in courts aims at
striking a blow at the Rule of Law. No court can ignore such
conduct, which tends to shake public confidence in the judicial
institutions, because the very structure of an ordered life is put
at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of
justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of
false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false
evidence in a court of law.
14. In Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police,
Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi [(2011) 5 SCC 496], the
Apex Court expressed the view that filing of a false affidavit
should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. In Sciemed
Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Limited [(2016) 3 SCC 70], the
Apex Court held that, though observations in Muthu Karuppan
[(2011) 5 SCC 496] were made in the context of contempt of
court proceedings, the view expressed must be generally
endorsed to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings.
15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
[(2008) 12 SCC 481], the Apex Court held that the party who
invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex Court under
Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 11 2026:KER:48312
is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all
material facts without any reservation even if they are against
him. He cannot be allowed to play ‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and
choose’ the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)
or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ
jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct)
facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very
functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible.
The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the
relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court
knows law but not facts”.
16. In K.D. Sharma [(2008) 12 SCC 481], the Apex
Court held further that, if the primary object as highlighted in R.
v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 KB
486] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with
candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court
with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts
is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering
or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and
prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the
material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 12 2026:KER:48312
manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power to
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge
the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination
of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on
that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such
an applicant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for
abusing the process of the court.
17. In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash
Khadekar [(2017) 5 SCC 496], a Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court held that the court must view with disfavour any
attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the
judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not
dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or
with the procedures of the court should be left in no doubt about
the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the
same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial
leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, to
ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our
country, there is no premium on the truth.
18. In Usha Nanthini M. v Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority [2018 (2) KLT 89], a judgment
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 13 2026:KER:48312
rendered by one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.], while sitting
single, it was held that a litigant who invokes the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India must come with clean hands and clean objects. Any
attempt made by a litigant to mislead this Court, either by
suppressing material facts or by filing false affidavits or giving
false statements, should be curbed with an iron hand. A litigant
has every right to withdraw the writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. However, once it is found that
he has approached the Court suppressing material facts or by
filing false affidavits or giving false statements, this Court has
ample power to decline the permission sought for withdrawal of
that writ petition. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing
exemplary costs is inevitable, and even necessary, to prevent
abuse of the process of this Court and to preserve the purity of
judicial proceedings.
19. The decision in Usha Nanthini M. [2018 (2) KLT
89], laying down the above legal principles, was confirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment dated 21.02.2018
in W.A.No.455 of 2018 – Usha Nanthini M. v Secretary,
Regional Transport Authority [2018:KER:8915]. The
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 14 2026:KER:48312
Division Bench noticed that judicial proceedings are sacrosanct,
and no person would be allowed, particularly in public law
remedy, to abuse the judicial process. In summary proceedings,
as the writ proceedings are, the Court places implicit faith in the
parties and their pleadings. The Division Bench found that the
learned Single Judge rightly refused the plea of the petitioner to
permit her to withdraw the writ petition. Paragraphs 4 to 10 of
the judgment dated 21.02.2018 of the Division Bench read thus;
“4. After going through the impugned judgment and the
material in the writ appeal, we find that the appellant faces
a grave charge – suppressing the material facts and
misleading the Court. In fact, Usha Nanthini herself, on the
learned Single Judge’s direction, filed an affidavit pleading
that she may be pardoned “if any wrong information is
made in the writ petition.” She pleaded with the Court to
permit her to withdraw the writ petition. The learned
Single Judge refused – rightly so.
5. The impugned judgment cites numerous judgments and
holds that filing false affidavits, or making false statements
on oath in courts, amounts to striking at the Rule of Law.
And this pernicious practice must be curbed with a heavy
hand, observes the learned Single Judge. Treating
misrepresentation of facts and manipulation of judicial
process as reprehensible, the learned Single Judge, while
dismissing the writ petition, imposed exemplary costs of
Rs.50,000/-.
6. We have no occasion to go into the merits of the appeal,
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 15 2026:KER:48312for Usha Nanthini’s conduct disentitles her to any equitable
relief; that is, adjudication under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
7. So, we focus on the costs imposed.
8. First, we entirely agree with the learned Single Judge.
The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no person
would be allowed, particularly, in a public law remedy, to
abuse the judicial process. In summary proceedings, as
the writ proceedings are, the Court places implicit faith in
the parties and their pleadings. It does not indulge in any
fact-finding or roving enquiry of what has been asserted.
After all, Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouses
equity jurisprudence, more than anything else.
9. Here, we find no justifiable cause to interfere with the
impugned judgment. But the learned Counsel for the
appellant has fervently pleaded that Usha Nanthini has
approached the Court bona fide and has candidly placed on
record whatever facts and evidence were at her disposal.
She has also urged that the appellant faces impecunious
circumstances and needs to be viewed leniently.
10. Though we disfavour disturbing the learned Single
Judge’s discretion in imposing exemplary costs, we only
propose to examine the mitigating circumstances, if any.
The learned counsel pleads Usha Nanthini’s financial
constraints and contrition of heart. As the plea appears to
be genuine and the appellant contrite, to mitigate the
rigour of costs, we reduce them by half: Rs.25,000/-. No
other findings are disturbed.” (underline supplied)
20. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 16 2026:KER:48312
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order
to grant temporary release for 15 days from 22.06.2026, i.e.,
from 22.06.2026 till 06.07.2026, to attend the ceremonies and
functions relating to his brother’s marriage, which was scheduled
on 28.06.2026. Ext.P4 petition filed before the 1st respondent
State, invoking the provisions under Section 14 of KAA(P) Act,
seeking an order to grant temporary release for 15 days from
22.06.2026, is one dated 17.06.2026. The writ petition, which
was one filed on 19.06.2026 at 18.58 hrs., was registered on
20.06.2026. On 23.06.2026, when the writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file a
counter affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent State, within a
week.
21. In the writ petition, though it is averred that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the Ext.P1 detention order dated
08.08.2025, issued against him under Section 3(1), 13(2)(i) of
KAA(P) Act, by the 3rd respondent District Collector and District
Magistrate, the document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the
memo dated 08.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent for
executing the order of detention. As already noticed
hereinbefore, during the course of arguments, the learned
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 17 2026:KER:48312
counsel for the petitioner could not offer any satisfactory
explanation for not producing the order of detention dated
08.08.2025 in this writ petition. The learned counsel could not
also offer any satisfactory explanation for not disclosing the
previous order of detention in this writ petition. When the
concealed facts are material to the merits of the claim made by
the petitioner in Ext.P4 petition for temporary release and even
the entertainability of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the competent authority to consider the petition
filed under Section 14 of the KAA(P) Act for temporary release,
to attend a marriage ceremony, the petitioner who does not
come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with
‘soiled hands’.
22. It is well settled that suppression or concealment of
material facts is not an advocacy. In view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in K.D. Sharma [(2008) 12 SCC 481], the
party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank
and open, who must disclose all material facts without any
reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 18 2026:KER:48312
play ‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and choose’ the facts he likes to
disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal)
other facts.
23. When the petitioner has not disclosed all the material
facts fairly and truly in the writ petition, but, stated them in a
distorted manner to mislead the Court, this Court has inherent
power to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to
discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. For such conduct, the
petitioner can even be dealt with under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for abusing the process of the
court.
24. The judicial proceedings are sacrosanct, and no
person would be allowed, particularly, in a public law remedy, to
abuse the judicial process. In writ proceedings, which are
summary proceedings, the Court places implicit faith in the
parties and their pleadings. Any attempt made by a litigant to
mislead this Court, either by suppressing material facts or by
filing false affidavits or giving false statements, should be curbed
with an iron hand.
25. A litigant has every right to withdraw the writ petition
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 19 2026:KER:48312
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as
held by this Court in Usha Nanthini M. [2018 (2) KLT 89],
which was confirmed by a Division Bench in Usha Nanthini M.
[2018:KER:8915], once it is found that the petitioner has
approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, suppressing material facts or by filing false affidavits or
giving false statements, this Court has ample power to decline
the permission sought for withdrawal of that writ petition.
Dismissal of such a writ petition imposing exemplary costs is
inevitable, and even necessary, to prevent abuse of the process
of this Court and to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings.
26. The principles laid down by this Court in Usha
Nanthini M. [2018 (2) KLT 89], which was confirmed by a
Division Bench in Usha Nanthini M. [2018:KER:8915], apply
with equal force in a case in which the petitioner seeks
permission to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous, once it is
found that he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, suppressing material facts or by filing false
affidavits or giving false statements. Dismissal of such a writ
petition imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, and even
necessary, to prevent abuse of the process of this Court and to
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 20 2026:KER:48312
preserve the purity of judicial proceedings.
27. When the concealed facts are material to the merits
of the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 petition for
temporary release and even the entertainability of a writ petition
seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the competent
authority to consider the petition filed under Section 14 of the
KAA(P) Act for temporary release, to attend a marriage
ceremony, the dismissal of the writ petition imposing exemplary
costs is inevitable, and even necessary, to prevent abuse of the
process of this Court and to preserve the purity of judicial
proceedings. It is also inevitable and even necessary to deal with
such conduct of the petitioner, against whom multiple orders of
preventive detention have already been passed, by initiating
contempt proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, for abusing the process of the court.
28. The memo of appearance filed in this W.P.(Crl.)
contains the names of 19 junior lawyers, who were enrolled after
2021 [2021 – 1 lawyer; 2022 – 7 lawyers; 2023 – 1 lawyer; 2024
– 3 lawyers; 2025 – 3 lawyers; and 2026 – 4 lawyers]. In such
circumstances, we refrain ourselves from imposing exemplary
costs on the petitioner or initiating contempt proceedings against
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 21 2026:KER:48312
him; after making it clear that any such attempts in future for
abusing the process of the court shall be dealt with sternly, in
accordance with the law laid down in the decisions referred to
supra, to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings.
29. In the above circumstances, this W.P.(Crl.) is
dismissed imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only) on the petitioner, payable to the Kerala State Legal
Services Authority, which is rendering free legal assistance to the
poor, weak and marginalised sections of the society, within a
period of three months from the date of this judgment.
In case of default, it would be open to the Member
Secretary, Kerala State Legal Services Authority, to recover the
said amount by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against
the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions under the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, in terms of the notification, i.e.,
G.O.(Ms.)No.107/2011/RD dated 26.02.2011, issued under the
provisions of Section 71 of the said Act.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
nak
WP(CRL)No.944 of 2026 22 2026:KER:48312
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO.944 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FOR EXECUTING
ORDER OF DETENTION NO:DCTCSR 9503/2025-C4,
DATED 08/08/2025 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR AND THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE,THRISSUR
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD
OF UKKASH WHICH IS SCHEDULED ON 28/06/2026
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD OF SRI.
UKKASH, THE BROTHER OF BINSHAD
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PRODUCED
BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADVISORY BOARD, ERNAKULAM
AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETERY (ACS) OF THE
HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
17/06/26
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
17/06/2026
