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.
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.
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
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
