Kerala High Court
Jino vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2024
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :1: 2024:KER:69894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JINO
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O PHILIP, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE,
MATTAMPURAM DESAM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680581
BY ADVS.
P.MOHAMED SABAH
LIBIN STANLEY
SAIPOOJA
SADIK ISMAYIL
R.GAYATHRI
M.MAHIN HAMZA
RAYEES P.
BENSON AMBROSE
ALWIN JOSEPH
AISWARYA K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :2: 2024:KER:69894
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT),
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR RANGE DIG OFFICE,
VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR CITY, PATTALAM ROAD, IN FRONT OF TOWN EAST
POLICE STATION, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, VELIYANNUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
SMT. NEEMA T.V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :3: 2024:KER:69894
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This Writ Petition is instituted challenging the order dated 8.4.2024
issued under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention)
Act, 2007 ('KAAPA' for brevity) by the 3rd respondent interdicting the
movement and entry of the petitioner within Thrissur Revenue District.
2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner asserts that earlier
reckoning his involvement in seven crimes, an externment order was issued
on 28.12.2022 and the period of externment ended on 28.09.2023.
Thereafter, he got himself involved in Crime No.1046 of 2023 registered on
10.12.2023 under Sections 323, 324, 308, 392, 447 r/w. Section 34 of the
IPC at the Viyyur Police Station. It was in the said circumstances that fresh
proceedings were initiated and the externment order was issued.
3. Sri. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, raised the following contentions before us to persuade this Court
to interfere with the order.
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :4: 2024:KER:69894
a) An evaluation of the allegations in Crime No.1046 of 2023 would
not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Sections 308 and
392 of the IPC.
b) While granting bail in Crime No.1046 of 2023, the jurisdictional
court had imposed stringent conditions that would have sufficed
to prevent the petitioner from indulging in further prejudicial
activities.
c) An application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in
the earlier crimes has already been filed and the same is pending
consideration. The ordinary law of the land could have been
utilized to curtail the activities instead of externing the petitioner.
d) Proceedings under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. have been initiated
against the petitioner and notice of the said proceeding was
served after the execution of the externment order. The petitioner
has already executed a bond for keeping good behaviour before
the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In that view of the matter, the
passing of an order under Section 15(1) of the KAAP Act is
unwarranted.
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :5: 2024:KER:69894
4. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent
controverting the contentions.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by
Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah and Smt. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The records made available before this Court reveal that an
externment order was earlier issued by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Thrissur Range, on 28.12.2022, after considering the predilection of
the petitioner in regularly indulging in anti-social activities. For passing the
externment order, seven cases in which the petitioner was involved were
taken note of. The period of externment ended on 28.09.2023.
Immediately thereafter, the petitioner got involved in Crime No.1046 of 2023
and it was on account of the above involvement that a fresh proposal was
submitted before the appropriate authority for initiation of proceedings
under Section 15 of the KAAP Act. The petitioner has been classified as a
'known rowdy' for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under Section 15.
7. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel
that Crime No.1046 of 2023 cannot be reckoned for the purpose of initiation
of proceedings. The said crime has been registered for offences inter alia
under Sections 308 and 392 of the IPC, which clearly falls under Section 2(t)
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :6: 2024:KER:69894
of the KAAP Act. The next contention raised by the learned counsel is that
the bail condition would have sufficed and that applications have already
been filed before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail granted
in earlier cases. A perusal of the crime history would reveal that inspite of
the imposition of stringent conditions while granting bail in the earlier cases
and despite the passing of an externment order, the petitioner has violated
the conditions and has got involved in Crime No. 1046 of 2023. While
passing the order, the competent authority has taken note of the application
for cancellation of bail pending before the jurisdictional court and also the
immediate need to prevent the petitioner from indulging in further
anti-social activities. We are also unable to accept the contention that the
execution of bond in the proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Cr.
P.C would have sufficed to prevent the petitioner from committing further
prejudicial activities. Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. speaks about the power of
an Executive Magistrate to require a habitual offender to furnish security to
keep good behavior. As held in Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and
Others1, the relative scope of the two proceedings is different and
independent. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr. P.C is in the nature of
security for keeping peace and public tranquility, and the free movement of
[2022 KHC OnLine 455]
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :7: 2024:KER:69894
such a person is not curtailed at all. Proceedings under Chapter VIII of the
Cr.P.C. are not an embargo to the initiation of proceedings under the KAAP
Act.
8. Having considered the entire facts, we are of the view that the
petitioner has not made out any grounds for interfering with the externment
order.
This Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
PS/11/9/2024
WP(CRL.) NO. 881 OF 2024 :8: 2024:KER:69894
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 881/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.03.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT NO.3
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 1046/2023 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
06.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR
