G.GIRISH,J. - (1.)Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the District Magistrate, Kannur, for preventive detention of the son of the petitioner, the present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus.
(2.)Ext.P1 order is the outcome of the report dtd. 12/4/2024 of the District Police Chief, Kannur Rural about three crimes in which the son of the petitioner is involved, which were, according to the said authority, sufficient to classify him as a 'known goonda' under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for short 'KAA(P)A']. The aforesaid three crimes are shown in the table below: JUDGEMENT_90_LAWS(KER)7_2024_1.JPG
(3.)After analysing the case records in the aforesaid three crimes, and the report of the District Police Chief, Kannur Rural referred above, the Detaining Authority (District Magistrate, Kannur) came to the conclusion that the petitioner's son would come under the definition of 'known goonda' under KAA(P)A and hence his preventive detention is highly necessary for the maintenance of public order. Accordingly, the Detaining Authority passed Ext.P1 order on 19/4/2024, on the basis of which the detenu was arrested on the same day and detained in prison. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present petition challenging the order on the following grounds:
i) The Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority colluded together and suppressed material facts relating to the bail granted to the detenu in Crime No.663/2023 of Iritty Police Station and Crime No.115/2024 of Thalassery Police Station, and passed the detention order mechanically without application of mind.

ii) The Detaining Authority failed to take into account the fact that the detenu has been complying with the bail condition, not to involve in any crimes, imposed by the Sessions Court while granting bail in Crime No.115/2024 of Thalassery Police Station, and passed Ext.P1 order under the pretext that the detenu was still in judicial custody. Thus, the impugned order has been passed without subjective satisfaction as to the grounds to consider the detenu as a 'known goonda'.