Kerala High Court
Sabari S.L vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:64014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 947 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SABARI S.L
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O SURESH B. NAIR, VADAKKETHODIYIL VEEDU,
CHETTIKULANGARA, VANCHIYOOR (P.O),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM:, PIN - 695035
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ
SHRI.PRAVEEN N. PILLAI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY POLICE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND POLICE
COMMISSIONER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VAZHUTHACADU,
THYCAUD(P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PETTA POLICE STATION, PETTA, VANCHIYOOR (P.O),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, VANCHIYOOR (P.O),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:64014
5 ADVISORY BOARD
KERALA ANTISOCIAL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT,
(KAAPA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAADAM
ROAD, ELAMAKKARA (P.O), ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:64014
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of externment dated
20.05.2025 passed against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of
the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act
for the sake of brevity]. By the said order, the petitioner has been
interdicted from entering the limits of Thiruvananthapuram Revenue
District for a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the
order.
2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
City submitted a proposal for initiation of proceedings against the
petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the
authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram City.
3. The authority considered five cases in which the
petitioner got involved while passing the order of externment. Out of
the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect
to the last prejudicial activity and considered by the authority while
passing the impugned order of externment is crime No.356/2025 of
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:64014
Vanchiyoor Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (for short "BNS"). For initiation of proceedings, the
petitioner was classified as a "known rowdy" as defined under
Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
4. Heard Sri.A.S Shammy Raj, 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
the Ext.P1 order was passed without proper consideration of facts
and without due application of mind. According to the 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.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority
after due application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned
Government Pleader, there is no undue delay in passing the
externment order, and therefore, the petitioner could not be heard to
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:64014
say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the
purpose of externment was snapped.
7. On perusal of the records, it is evident that it was after
taking into account the petitioner's repeated involvement in criminal
activities, the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram City, has
mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act
against the petitioner. Altogether, five cases formed the basis for
passing the impugned order. The case registered against the
petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.356/2025 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), r/w 3(5)
of BNS.
8. The alleged incident constituting the last prejudicial
activity occurred on 12.03.2025. After the commission of the offence,
the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused absconded.
Thereafter, it was on 24.04.2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram city, forwarded the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under KAA(P)Act against the petitioner. Subsequently,
the jurisdictional authority passed the order of externment on
20.05.2025, thereby prohibiting the petitioner from entering the
limits of Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District for a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the order.
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:64014
9. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that
there was no delay in passing the impugned order. Moreover, 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 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. Because an order of
detention is a grave deprivation of the personal liberty of the person
detained. It stands on a different footing when compared with an
order of externment. We are cognizant that Section 15 of the KAA(P)
Act also visits the person concerned with an intrusion to his personal
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 Section 3 and Section 15 is
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:64014
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.
10. From a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that all
the necessary requirements before passing an order under Section
15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act have been scrupulously complied with in
this case. The impugned order reflects that the jurisdictional
authority, having regard to the antecedents of the petitioner, entered
into a definite observation that the petitioner is a habitual offender
who used to engage in criminal activities again and again, flouting all
the earlier bail conditions clamped on him. A holistic reading of the
impugned order further suggests that the jurisdictional authority
passed the order after being satisfied that the bail conditions
imposed on the petitioner is not sufficient to deter him from
involving in criminal activities further. Likewise, the actions under
ordinary criminal law will not suffice to prevent his propensity to
engage in criminal activities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
order passed under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:64014
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
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.947 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:64014
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 947/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-05-
2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED 06-06-2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
06-06-2025
Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 03-07-
2025 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
