Kerala High Court
Bibeesh C.B vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:57036
W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 585 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BIBEESH C.B, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O BABY, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE,
MANALOOR , MANALOOR P.O THRISSUR, PIN - 680617
BY ADVS.
KUM.GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
SMT.ARCHANA B.
SMT.STEFIN THOMAS
SHRI.AJIN K. KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR RURAL OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR RURAL, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680641
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI ANAS K A
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON 01.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57036
W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 2
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
The petitioner ['externee' for the sake of brevity] has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
I. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P2 orders and further may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P2 order as the same is illegal and arbitrary.
II. To declare that the petitioner is not liable to be restrained under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. 2. The petitioner, Bibeesh C. B., challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, dated 28.03.2025 passed under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ['KAA(P) Act' for the sake of brevity]. By the impugned order, he has been interdicted from entering into the territorial limits of Thrissur Revenue District for a period of one year from the date of execution of the order.
In the aforesaid order, the externee was classified as 'Known Rowdy' under Section 2p(iii) of the KAA(P) Act on account of his involvement in the following four crimes.
2025:KER:57036
W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 3
1) Crime No.1189/2020 of Anthikad Police Station registered for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 r/w 149 of IPC. Section 326 IPC is the major offence. The date of occurrence was on 21.09.2020 and now the case is pending trial in JFCM-II, Thrissur.
2) Crime No.641/2021 of Anthikkad Police Station registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The alleged occurrence was on 26.09.2021, and the case is pending trial in the Additional Assistant Sessions Court-I, Thrissur.
3) Crime No.941/2023 of Thrissur East Police Station registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 427, 34 of IPC. The date of occurrence was on 02.04.2023, and the case is pending trial before the JFCM-I, Thrissur.
4) Crime No.61/2025 of Anthikad Police Station registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above crime. The date of occurrence was 12.01.2025.
2025:KER:57036
W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 4
3. The last prejudicial act against the externee is Crime No.61/2025 of
Anthikad Police Station. The allegation against the externee was that, due to previous animosity, the externee has wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant on 12.01.2025 at about 7.15 p.m., abused and threatened him, and also caused hurt to the complainant by inflicting blows on him. The investigation in this case was completed, and the charge sheet was filed on 30.01.2025. 4. A proposal was mooted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, and forwarded to the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Based on this proposal, Ext.P2 externment order was passed. A show cause notice was issued to the externee to appear before the 2nd respondent on 15.03.2025. On that day, the petitioner could not appear. Later on 22.03.2025, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order was passed on 28.03.2025 for a period of one year.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite satisfaction. The learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order was passed without following the statutory safeguards provided under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act. He pointed out that proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the BNSS against the externee, and he had executed a bond 2025:KER:57036 W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 5 on 03.04.2024. Thereafter, he got involved in only one case, which was a minor offence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the last prejudicial act.
6. The learned counsel would further submit that the live link between the last prejudicial act and the externment order has been broken due to the delay of 75 days. The impugned order is passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the dictum laid down in Deepak v. State of Maharashtra and others1. In Deepak (supra), the Apex Court held that externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances, as such an order takes away the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the delay in passing the order has been properly explained. Since the petitioner is to be given an opportunity of being heard, some delay is inevitable. The externment order is passed with due application of mind and after arriving at the requisite satisfaction of the externment authority. Ext.P2 externment order is passed after scrupulously complying with the provisions of Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgment in Stalin C.V. v.
1
2022 Livelaw SC 93
2025:KER:57036
W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 6
State of Kerala2, wherein it was held that before passing an order under Section 15 of KAA(P) Act, the principles of natural justice are to be observed, and therefore some delay is inevitable.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.
9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a delay of 75 days between the last prejudicial act and the externment order and the said delay would snap the live link. The last prejudicial act is on 12.01.2025, and the externment order is passed on 28.03.2025. Unlike an order passed under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, an externment order requires the authority to comply with the principles of natural justice. The person proposed to be externed must be given an opportunity of being heard. As a result, some delay in the process is unavoidable. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the live link or rational nexus has been broken. 10. The records would reveal that a rowdy history sheet was opened against the petitioner. Thereafter, the proceeding under Section 129 of BNSS was initiated. Despite all these measures, the petitioner has again been involved in another case.
2
2011(1) KHC 852
2025:KER:57036
W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 7
11. The externment authority, considering the proposal of the District
Police Chief and after arriving at the objective and subjective satisfaction, has passed the impugned order. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Ext.P2 order was passed scrupulously following the safeguards provided under Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act.
12. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has to take care of his family and elderly parents and they are solely dependent on him. The externment order would adversely affect his employment and financial prospects.
13. In Dinchu Mohanan v. State of Kerala3, the Division Bench of this Court held that the court is empowered to annul, amend, or confirm the order of externment passed under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the externment order passed against the externee on 28.03.2025 can be reduced to four months. For the remaining period, the externee can be directed to report before the Station House Officer, Anthikkad Police Station. 15. Resultantly, Ext.P2 order is modified by reducing the period of externment passed by the 2nd respondent to four months from the date of service 3 2015(2) KHC 101 2025:KER:57036 W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 8 of the order. This modification is subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Anthikkad Police Station, every Saturday between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. until the period of externment under Ext.P2 expires.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/
2025:KER:57036
W.P(Crl) No.585/2025 9
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 585/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 15-03-2025
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY
INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR DATED 28.03.2025