Kerala High Court
Jafar Ali vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:59691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 618 OF 2025
CRIME NO.43/2025 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.803 OF 2024
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER:
JAFAR ALI
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, VETTATHOD,
KANNANMANGALAM, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676304
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
SMT.ABHIRAMI S.
SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
SHRI.PRASEED V.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
TRISSUR RANGE, RANGE OFFICE, CHEMPUKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, UP-HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:59691
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:59691
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order of externment passed
against the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity].
By the said order, the petitioner was interdicted from entering the
limits of the Revenue District Malappuram for six months from the
date of the receipt of the order.
2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities, the District Police Chief, Malappuram submitted a proposal
for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section
15(1) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of
proceedings, the petitioner has been classified as a “known goonda”
as defined under Section 2(o) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered three cases in which the
petitioner was involved for passing the order of externment. The last
case considered for passing the impugned order of externment is
crime No.43/2025 of Karipoor Police Station registered, alleging
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:59691
commission of the offence punishable under Section 22(a) of the
NDPS Act.
4. Heard Sri. Navaneeth N.Nath, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the Ext.P3 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and
without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there
is inordinate delay in passing the impugned order and hence, the live
link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
externment is snapped. The learned counsel further submits that the
jurisdictional authority should have considered the fact that already
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 126
of BNSS and the said proceedings would certainly be sufficient to
prevent the petitioner from involving in criminal activities. Moreover,
the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed
in a casual manner without arriving at the requisite objective and
subjective satisfaction, and hence warrants interference.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:59691
proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned
Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay in passing the
impugned order, and hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say
that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose
of externment was snapped. It was further submitted that all the
procedural safeguards were complied with while passing the order of
externment against the petitioner, and hence, no interference is
warranted.
7. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the last
prejudicial activity considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass
Ext.P3 order of externment is Crime No.43/2025 of Karipoor Police
Station registered, alleging commission of the offence punishable
under Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act. The last prejudicial activity was
committed on 17.01.2025, and in the said case, the petitioner was
arrested and released on bail on the same day. It was on 14.03.2025,
that the District Police Chief, Malappuram, forwarded the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P)Act against the petitioner.
Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.03.2025 to
show cause why action under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act should
not be taken against him. In order to afford the petitioner an
opportunity of being heard, he was directed to appear before the
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:59691
jurisdictional authority on 29.03.2025. In response to the said notice,
the petitioner appeared before the jurisdictional authority and filed a
written submission. After considering his written as well as oral
submissions, the jurisdictional authority passed the order of
externment on 07.04.2025, whereby the petitioner was restrained
from entering the limits of the Revenue Districts, Malappuram, for a
period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
8. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that there
is no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order. Moreover, an
externment order under the KAA(P) Act is having significant bearing
on the personal as well as fundamental rights of an individual.
Therefore, some minimum time is required to collect the details of
the cases in which the petitioner is involved and to comply with the
procedural formalities. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay
occurred in this case is only justifiable, and it could not be said that
the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
the impugned order is snapped. Moreover, unlike in the case of an
order of detention passed under Section 3 of KAA(P) Act, even if
some delay has occurred in passing an order of externment, the same
has no serious bearing as the consequences of both the orders are
different. Because an order of detention is a grave deprivation of the
personal liberty of the person detained. We are cognizant that
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:59691
Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act also visits the person concerned with an
intrusion on his personal liberty within the limit of Article 21
especially when the said order restrains a citizen from his right to
travel in any part of India. However, when a detention order under
Section 3 of KAA(P) Act is compared with an order of externment
passed under Section 15(1) of KAA(P) Act, the latter visits a person
with lesser deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the nature of
proceedings under Sections 3 and 15 is inherently different. In this
regard, we are fortified by the decision in Stalin C.V. v. State of
Kerala and others [2011 (1) KHC 852]. Moreover, an order under
Section 15 can be treated only as equivalent to a condition imposed
in a bail order, especially when the same only curtails the movement
of the petitioner. Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that
the minimal delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the
externment order after the date of the last prejudicial activity has no
serious impact at all, and the same is only liable to be discarded.
9. The next contention of the petitioner is that proceeding
under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P)Act was not at all necessitated in
this case, as a proceeding under Section 126 of BNSS had already
been initiated. This Court in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and
Others [2022 KHC OnLine 455] has held that the relative scope of
the two proceedings is different and independent. Proceedings under
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:59691
S.107 of the Cr. P.C, is in the nature of security for keeping peace and
public tranquility, and the free movement of such a person is not
curtailed at all. The power of externment under Section 15(1) of the
KAA(P) Act, on the other hand, allows an authorized officer to
restrain an individual, identified as a “known goonda” or “known-
rowdy” under the Act, from entering specified areas. This order can
be issued if, after affording an opportunity of being heard, the officer
is satisfied that the individual is engaging in, about to engage in, or
likely to engage in anti-social activities. The affected person must
meet the criteria for a Known goonda or Known rowdy, and the
officer must satisfy himself, objectively and subjectively, that
restrictions are necessary to prevent further anti-social activities as
defined under section 2(a) of the KAAP Act.
10. Virtually, Section 107 proceedings under the Cr.P.C. and the
provisions under the KAAP Act operate in different spheres. At the
same time, it has to be borne in mind that in a case where it is
possible to prevent the petitioner from continuing his anti-social
activity by methods other than his preventive detention or
externment, the authorities are bound to adopt those methods rather
than depriving his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. It was therefore that this court as well as the Apex Court have
held that in cases where proceedings such as those under Section
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:59691
107 of the Cr.P.C are initiated, the authorities should consider
whether, in spite of the initiation of such proceedings it is necessary
to preventively detain or extern the person concerned and that on
such examination if the authorities are satisfied that detention or
externment is necessary, it is open to the authorities to validly do so.
11. In the case at hand, the records clearly reveal that the
proceedings initiated under Section 126 of BNSS is adverted to in
the impugned order. There is specific mention in the impugned order
that the proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS is not sufficient to
prevent the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned order is passed
after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction and after taking note of the fact that proceedings under
Section 126 of BNSS alone are not sufficient to restrict the criminal
activities of the petitioner.
12. From a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that all the
necessary requirements before passing an order under Section 15(1)
of the KAA(P) Act have been scrupulously complied with in this case.
We are further satisfied that the competent authority passed the
externment order after thoroughly verifying all the materials placed
by the sponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:59691
satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under
Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in any manner.
13. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the
petitioner has not made out any case for interference.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.618 of 2025 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:59691
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 618/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE3RD RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 14.03.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
DATED 22.03.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTERNMENT ORDER
BEARING NO. B3-5909/2025/TSR ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.04.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO 1738-39/2024 DATED
21.03.2024
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP CRL
NO.232 OF 2023 K. SURESH KUMAR V/S
STATE OF KERALA & OTHER DATED
10.07.2023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
22.08.2024 IN WP CRL NO.511/2024
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
09.09.2024 IN WP(CRL) NO. 884/2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
31.10.2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH