Kerala High Court
Thilash K.T vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:56236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 721 OF 2025
CRIME NO.977/2024 OF Kattoor Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.31 OF 2025
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
THILASH K.T., AGED 41 YEARS
KATHIRAPULLY, PONJANAM, KATTOOR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680702
BY ADVS.
SHRI.HAPPYMON BABU
SMT.JAHRA K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
THRISSUR CITY, CHEMPUKKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:56236
3 KERALA ANTISOCIAL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT
(KAAPA) ADVISORY BOARD
PADOM RD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:56236
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, challenging the order of externment dated 22.03.2025 passed
against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(b) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity].
By the said order, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Sub
Divisional Police Officer, Irinjalakuda, on every Wednesday between
11 a.m. and 3 p.m. for six months from the date of the original
externment order.
2. The records available before us reveal that it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities, that the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, submitted a
proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under
Section 15(1)(b) of the KAA(P) Act. before the authorised officer, the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range. For initiation of
proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known rowdy” as
defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. The authority considered three cases in which the
petitioner got himself involved while passing the order of externment.
The last case considered by the authority for passing the impugned
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:56236
order of externment is crime No.977/2024 of Kattoor Police Station
registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 110 r/w 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”).
4. Heard Sri.Happymon Babu, 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
Ext.P4 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and
without proper application of mind. According to the learned 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. He further submits that, the externee will not fall under the
definition of a “known rowdy” provided under the KAA(P) Act, and
therefore, an order of externment could not be passed against him.
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 arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned
Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay in passing the
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:56236
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 the
petitioner will certainly come within the definition of a “known rowdy”
and the order passed against him under Section 15(1)(b) of KAA(P)
Act will be sustained.
7. On a perusal of the records, it is evident that it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities, that the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, has mooted
the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the
petitioner. Altogether, three cases formed the basis for passing the
impugned order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the
petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.977/2024 of Kattoor Police Station registered against the
petitioner, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 110 r/w 3(5) of BNS.
8. The last prejudicial activity was committed on
29.12.2024, and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested on
27.01.2025, and he was released on bail on the same day as he
obtained an order of anticipatory bail in the said case from this Court.
Thereafter it was on 18.02.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur
Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:56236
KAA(P)Act against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 03.03.2025, the
jurisdictional authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon
him to show cause as to why an order of externment should not be
passed against him. In order to afford the petitioner an opportunity of
being heard personally, he was further directed to appear before the
jurisdictional authority on 15.03.2025. In response to the said notice,
the petitioner appeared before the jurisdictional authority on
15.03.2025 and submitted a written representation. After considering
the submissions made and the representation submitted, the
jurisdictional authority passed the order of externment on 22.03.2025,
whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Sub
Divisional Police Officer, Irinjalakuda, on every Wednesday for six
months from the date of the said order.
9. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that there
is no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order. It is true that
there is a delay of around two months in mooting the proposal for
initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act, on the part of the
sponsoring authority. However, 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 is
involved and to comply with the procedural formalities. Therefore, we
are of the view that the minimum delay occurred in this case in
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:56236
mooting the proposal 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. Since an order of detention is a grave deprivation of the
personal liberty of the person detained, it stands on a different footing
when compared to an order of externment. We are cognizant that
Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act also applies to the person concerned
with an intrusion on his 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 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 there is no inordinate delay either in
mooting the proposal or in passing the order of externment in this
case.
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:56236
10. At the end of the argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that due to the direction imposed in the
impugned order, the petitioner is constrained to visit the office of the
Sub Divisional Police Officer once a week, and the same is causing
much inconvenience and hardships to him and adversely affects his
livelihood. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a
salesman in the diamond trade, and the nature of his profession
necessitates frequent travels to various parts of the country, and due
to the direction in the impugned order, he could not continue with his
job. He also submits that some relaxation or modification is highly
warranted in the instant case. However, from the submissions made
by the learned Government Pleader and the documents produced from
his side, it is apparent that despite the issuance of the impugned
order, the accused is engaging in criminal activities. A perusal of the
FIR produced by the Government Pleader reveals that during the
currency of the impugned order another case was registered against
the petitioner as crime No.637/2025 of Kattoor Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Section 126(2), 296 (b),
118(1) and 110 of the BNS. The fact that the petitioner got involved
in another case regardless of the restrictions in the impugned order
makes the matter more grave and hence no leniency can be shown in
his favour. We are not oblivious of our power power to annul or
amend an order passed under Section 15(1)(b) of the KAA(P) Act. The
said power is limited and will be exercised only sparingly in
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:56236
exceptional circumstances. Considering the conduct of the petitioner
even after the passing of the impugned order persuades us to hold
that this is not a fit case to invoke the power of this Court to modify
the order of externment.
11. 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
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the order passed under Section 15(1)(b) of the KAA(P) Act is
vitiated in any manner.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has
not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition fails
and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.721 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:56236
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 721/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN FIR NO
197/2024 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION
DATED 19.03.2024
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF
CRIME NO. 197/2024 DATED 19.03.2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
977/2024 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION
DATED 30.12.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DEPUTY
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RANGE
OFFICE, THRISSUR IN 34/KAA(P)A/SBTSR
RL/2025 DATED 22.03.2025 ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL MC
NO. 2551 OF 2025 DATED 6.5.2025
Annexure A1 WORK RELATED TRAVELLING DOCUMENTS OF
THE PETITIONER
Annexure A2 EMPLOYEES REGISTER
Annexure A3 FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
Annexure A4 TRAVELLING DOCUMENT OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 07/07/2025
Annexure A5 EMPLOYEES ATTENDANCE REGISTER IN THE
MONTH OF APRIL AND MAY
Annexure A6 FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
DATED 09/07/25
Exhibit P6 TRAVELLING DOCUMENT OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 07/07/2025 TO 09/07/2025 TO
SURAT.
Exhibit P7 EMPLOYEES ATTENDANCE REGISTER IN THE
MONTH OF APRIL AND MAY
Exhibit P8 FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
DATED 09/07/2025