Kerala High Court
Sreejith vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:42707
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(CRL.) NO. 648 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SREEJITH
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O SREEKUMAR, MUTHIRAKUNNATHU VEEDU, M S NAGAR-65,
VALIYAMADOM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM - 691004
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME),
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM- 691013
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM CITY,
KOLLAM - 691001
4 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN BUILDING, FORT P.O,
TRIVANDRUM- 695023
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
W.P.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :2:
2025:KER:42707
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.06.2025, THE COURT ON 17.06.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :3:
2025:KER:42707
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 25.02.2025 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
Kollam 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 24.04.2025, modified the said order and the period of
exernment was reduced from six months to four months, and thereafter,
the petitioner was directed to report before the Station House Officer,
Kilikollur Police Station on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00
p.m. for the remaining period of two 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, Kollam City 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, Thiruvananthapuram Range. For initiation of
W.P.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :4:
2025:KER:42707
proceedings, 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 himself involved for passing the order of externment. The last case
considered by the authorised officer for passing the impugned order of
externment is crime No.1453/2024 of Eravipuram Police Station registered
against the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).
4. Heard Sri.C.Rajendran, 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.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :5:
2025:KER:42707
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.1453/2024 of Eravipuram Police Station
registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) and
W.P.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :6:
2025:KER:42707
3(5) of BNS. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 27.10.2024,
and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 29.10.2024.
Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail on 11.11.2024.
Thereafter it was on 13.12.2024, the District Police Chief, Kollam City,
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 25.02.2025,
whereby the petitioner was restrained from entering the limits of Kollam
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
W.P.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :7:
2025:KER:42707
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 Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act also visits
the person concerned with an intrusion to 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,
W.P.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :8:
2025:KER:42707
did not take note of the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in the
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
W.P.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :9:
2025:KER:42707
order is vitiated as the jurisdictional authority failed to consider the
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.(Crl.) No. 648 of 2025 :10:
2025:KER:42707
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 648/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTERNMENT ORDER
ORDER NO. SIT-2227/2025/TR PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2025
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADVISORY
BOARD IN OP NO.75/2025 DATED 24/04/2025