Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shareef vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2024:KER:70086
W.P(C)No.29967 of 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TH
FRIDAY, THE 13 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
WP(C) NO.29967 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SHAREEF
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN, THAZATHETHIL VEEDU, MAYATHUMKARA,
CHERUPALASSERY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679503
BY ADVS.
M.H.HANIS
P.M.JINIMOL
T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
NANCY MOL P.
ANANDHU P.C.
NEETHU.G.NADH
RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
ANN MARY ANSEL
SINISHA JOSHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2024:KER:70086
W.P(C)No.29967 of 2024 2
BY ADVS.
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70086
W.P(C)No.29967 of 2024 3
JUDGMENT
G.Girish, J.
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of externment dated 23.07.2024 of the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range under Section 15(1)(a) of
the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [for short 'KAA(P)A'],
against the petitioner, the present petition is filed by him under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
2. Ext.P1 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent (Authorised
Officer) after finding that the explanation offered by the petitioner for the
show cause notice issued to him on 11.07.2024 was unsatisfactory. As per the
said order, based on the report of District Police Chief, Palakkad, the
Authorised Officer found the petitioner a 'known rowdy' in view of his
involvement in the following three crimes.
Sl.No Crime No. Offences Present Status
1 386/2022 of u/s 353, 294(b), Final report filed and the case is
Koppam Police 506, and 379 IPC now pending before the Judicial
Station and Section 20 First Class Magistrate Court,
r/w Section 23 of Pattambi as C.C.No.341/2023
KPRB & RRS Act
2 743/2023 of u/s 143, 147, The case is now pending
Cherppulassery 148, 452, 341, investigation.
Police Station 323, 324, 427,
308 506(i) and
294(b) IPC r/w
section 149 of
IPC
2024:KER:70086
3 304/2024 of u/s 451, 341, The case is now pending
Cherppulassery 323 & 326 of IPC investigation.
Police Station r/w Section 34 of
the IPC
3. After analysing the above report dated 01.07.2024 of the District
Police Chief, Palakkad and the documents submitted in support of it, the
Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the externment of the
petitioner for a period of six months from entering into Palakkad Revenue
District is highly necessary for the maintenance of public order, and
accordingly, passed Ext.P1 order which was enforced on 24.07.2024.
4. Heard Adv.Mr.M.H.Hanis, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Adv.Mr.Anas, learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. Ext.P1 order is challenged by the petitioner on the following
grounds:
(i) The first case reckoned by the Authorised Officer cannot be
considered for declaring the petitioner as a known rowdy since the offence
under Section 20 read with Section 23 of the KPRB and RRS Act do not come
under clause (t) of Section 2 of KAA(P)A.
(ii) The second crime reckoned by the Authorised Officer is in
connection with a dispute between partners, and hence it is no way related to
maintenance of public order.
2024:KER:70086
(iii) In the third case reckoned by the Authorised Officer, the role of
the petitioner is very limited, and it is not possible to say that the issue
involved is related to maintenance of public order.
(iv) There is a long delay of more than two months from the last
prejudicial activity attributed to the petitioner, in passing Ext.P1 order.
(v) The Authorised Officer has not considered the sufficiency of the
bail condition imposed by the Jurisdictional Court, for preventing the
petitioner from indulging in acts affecting the maintenance of public order.
(vi) Ext.P1 order was not communicated to the Government through
the Director General of Police.
6. The contention of the petitioner that the 1st crime reckoned by
the Authorised Officer is not one qualified to be considered for classifying him
as a 'known rowdy', is totally unsustainable. As already stated in the table
above, the said crime is one registered for the commission of offence under
Sections 353, 294(b), 506 and 379 of the IPC and Section 20 r/w 23 of KPRB
and RRS Act. It is true that the offences under KPRB and RRS Act do not
come within the purview of Section 2(t) of the KAA(P)A. But at the same
time, it is to be noted that the other offences under IPC slapped against the
petitioner clearly come under Clause (t) of Section 2 of the KAA(P)A, and thus
2024:KER:70086
there is absolutely nothing wrong in reckoning the said crime for classifying
the petitioner as a 'known rowdy'.
7. The contention of the petitioner that the second crime attributed
against him is a mere dispute between partners, and hence liable to be
eschewed, cannot be accepted since the offence under Sections 452, 341,
323, 324, 427, 308, 506(i) and 294(b) slapped against the petitioner are
qualified to be considered for declaring the petitioner as a 'known rowdy'. It is
not possible to brush aside the said case as a mere business dispute between
partners since grave offences including attempt to commit culpable homicide
are seen included in the case registered against the petitioner and others.
Thus the challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard is totally
unacceptable.
8. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is only a limited role for the petitioner in the crime reckoned by the
Authorised Officer as the third item, and that the said issue can only be
treated as a law and order problem, is untenable since it is apparent from the
facts of the said case that the petitioner, being the second accused in that
case, has got active involvement in the commission of that crime, and that it
is not possible to extenuate the gravity of the offence under Section 326 of
the IPC involved in the said case.
2024:KER:70086
9. As regards the delay, it is seen that Ext.P1 order has been passed
within three days after 20.07.2024 when the petitioner appeared before the
Authorised Officer and offered explanation to the show cause notice dated
11.07.2024. The said show cause notice was issued to the petitioner within 54
days after the date of last prejudicial activity. It is pertinent to note that
proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were
initiated against the petitioner on 19.12.2023, and that the petitioner
committed the crime reckoned as last prejudicial activity at a time when he
was on bail in the above proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate. Taking into account the above nature of the petitioner who never
cares the proceedings initiated against him by various authorities to rein in
him from indulging in criminal activities, it is not possible to say that the total
delay of two months and six days was so inordinate to snap the live link
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose sought to be
accomplished by the preventive detention of the petitioner. Thus the
challenge raised by the petitioner in the above regard, is also unsustainable.
10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
authorized officer did not consider the sufficiency of the bail condition
imposed by the jurisdictional court while granting bail to the petitioner in the
last prejudicial activity attributed against him. According to the learned
2024:KER:70086
counsel for the petitioner, the bail order requiring him to appear before the
Investigating Officer for a period of two months ought to have been
considered as a precautionary measure to prevent the further indulgence of
the petitioner in criminal activities. We are not impressed by the above
argument since it is seen from Ext.P1 order that the authorized officer had
referred to the various bail conditions imposed by the jurisdictional courts
while granting bail to the petitioner in the earlier crimes, and stated that the
petitioner had been involving in crimes with scant regard to those conditions.
It is further observed by the authorized officer that the bail conditions
imposed by the jurisdictional courts are found to be insufficient to prevent the
petitioner from indulging in criminal activities disrupting the peaceful life of
the people. We find no reason to unsettle the above conclusion of the
authorized officer on the basis of her subjective satisfaction on that issue.
11. Referring to the relevant files, the learned Senior Government
Pleader brought to our notice that Ext.P1 order was communicated forthwith
to the Government through the Director General of Police, as required under
the Proviso to Section 15(1) of KAA(P)A, and that the submission to the
contrary is totally baseless. There is absolutely no reason to find any such
procedural violation in this case. Thus, the contention of the petitioner in the
above regard is also found to be unsustainable.
2024:KER:70086
As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to
interfere with Ext.P1 order.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
G.GIRISH,
JUDGE
jsr/vgd/ded
2024:KER:70086
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29967/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-12591/2024/TSR
DATED 23.07.2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
THE RECORDS SUPPLIED
