Kerala High Court
Sahindev vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:42708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18424 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAHINDEV
AGED 39 YEARS
S, S/O SADASIVAN, KONDIYARA HOUSE, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE,
THRISSUR RURAL - 680671
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SHRI.ANANDHU P.C.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR - 670002
3 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM - 682026
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :2:
2025:KER:42708
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 16.06.2025, THE COURT ON 17.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :3:
2025:KER:42708
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging Ext.P1 order of externment dated 02.04.2025 passed
against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) 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
Thrissur Revenue District for a period of six months from the date of the
receipt of the order. However, the KAA(P) Act Advisory Board vide its
order dated 09.05.2025 modified the said order and the period of
externment was reduced from six months to three months and thereafter
the petitioner was directed to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Kodungallur, and sign before him on all Tuesdays between 10.00
a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for the remaining period of three months.
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, Thrissur Rural submitted a proposal for
the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a)
of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of proceedings,
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :4:
2025:KER:42708
the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” as defined under Section
2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered five cases in which the petitioner
got involved before passing the order of externment. The last case
considered by the authorised officer for passing the impugned order of
externment is crime No.1820/2024 of Kodungalloor Police Station
registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, and 3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).
4. Heard Sri.M.H.Hanis, 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.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is an
inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the order of
externment, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of the externment order is snapped. The learned counsel
further submitted that though the petitioner was released on bail in the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity on stringent
conditions, the said fact is not adverted to, in the impugned order and the
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :5:
2025:KER:42708
sufficiency of bail conditions imposed by the court while granting bail was
also not considered by the jurisdictional authority. 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 proper
application of mind and after entering on the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader,
there is no inordinate delay in passing the externment 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.P1
order of externment is crime No.1820/2024 of Kodungalloor Police Station
registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, and 3(5)
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :6:
2025:KER:42708
of BNS. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 13.12.2024, and in
the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2025. Subsequently,
the petitioner was released on bail on 17.02.2025. Thereafter it was on
15.03.2025, the District Police Chief, Thirussur Rural, forwarded the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P)Act against the
petitioner. After complying all the procedural formalities, the jurisdictional
authority passed the order of externment on 02.04.2025, whereby the
petitioner was restrained from entering the limits of Thrissur Revenue
District 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 a 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 was involved and to comply with the procedural formalities.
Therefore, we are of the view that the minimum 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
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :7:
2025:KER:42708
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 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 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 Section
3 and Section 15 are 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 there is no inordinate delay either in
mooting the proposal or in passing the order of externment in this case
9. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority, while passing the order,
did not take note of the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in the
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :8:
2025:KER:42708
last case registered against him. According to the counsel, the
jurisdictional authority also failed to consider the sufficiency of the bail
conditions imposed by the court at the time of granting bail. While
considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in the above
regard, it is to be noted that there is no law which precludes the
jurisdictional authority to pass an order of externment against a person
who is already on bail. However, when an order of externment is passed
against a person who is on bail, it is imperative upon the authority to take
note of the said fact and to consider whether the bail conditions imposed
on such a person while granting bail by the court are sufficient to prevent
the externee from involving in criminal activities. Keeping in mind the
above, while reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen that in the
impugned order itself, the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in
the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity
is specifically adverted to. However, in the impugned order, the sufficiency
of the bail conditions was not considered by the jurisdictional authority. In
the impugned order, it is nowhere mentioned that the conditions clamped
on the externee are not sufficient to deter him from repeating criminal
activities. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned
order is vitiated as the jurisdictional authority failed to consider the
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :9:
2025:KER:42708
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner by the court
while granting bail to him.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of
externment stands set aside.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P.(C.) No. 18424 of 2025 :10:
2025:KER:42708
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18424/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
B3-6007/2025/TSR DATED 02.04.2025 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2025
IN O.P.NO. 82/2025 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT