[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Midhun vs State Of Kerala on 1 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:92596
WP(Crl.) No.1602 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1602 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
MIDHUN
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O MANOJ, PATTATT HOUSE, AKG COLONY DESOM, NATTIKA
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680566
BY ADVS.
SHRI.HILAL BABU
SHRI.BALASUBRAMANYAN
SMT.PRIYANKA SUSAN RAJU
SHRI.VAISAKH J.
SHRI.MUHAMMED ASHIK K.A.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THRISSUR RANGE, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THRISSUR RURAL, KATTUNGACHIRA, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH,
PORATHISSERY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:92596
WP(Crl.) No.1602 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of
externment dated 11.07.2025, passed against the petitioner by the
2nd respondent, invoking 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 was interdicted from entering the
limits of the Revenue District Thrissur for six months from the date of
the receipt of the order.
2. Altogether, three cases in which the petitioner was
involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for
passing Ext.P1 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.466/2025 of Valapad Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110 r/w 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
3. Heard Sri.Hilal Babu, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on
2025:KER:92596
improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel,
the jurisdictional authority should have considered the fact that
already the petitioner had executed a bond for keeping peace in
pursuance of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under
Section 126 B.N.S.S., and the said proceedings would certainly be
sufficient to prevent the petitioner from being involved in criminal
activities. According to the learned counsel, as the bond executed by
the petitioner itself is sufficient to deter him from being involved in
criminal activities, an order under KAA(P) Act is not at all
necessitated. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that Ext.P1 externment order was passed by the jurisdictional
authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. It was further
submitted that all the procedural safeguards were complied with
while passing Ext.P1 externment order, and hence, no interference is
warranted.
6. As evident from the impugned order, three cases in
which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing
2025:KER:92596
Ext.P1 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered
with respect to last prejudicial activity is Crime No.466/2025 of
Valapad Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (for short "BNS"). The incident which led to the registration
of the case occurred on 14.02.2025. The petitioner was arrested in
the said case on 15.04.2025, and he was released on bail on
05.05.2025. It was on 24.06.2025, while the petitioner was on bail,
that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act was
forwarded by the sponsoring authority. The sequence of the events
narrated above reveals that there is no inordinate delay in mooting
the proposal as well as in passing the externment order.
7. However, we are not oblivious of the fact that there is a
delay of more than one and a half months in mooting the proposal
after the release of the petitioner on bail in the last case registered
against him. While considering the question whether the said delay
would snap the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and
purpose of the impugned order, it is to be noted that, unlike in the
case of an order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the 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
2025:KER:92596
grave deprivation of the personal liberty of the person detained. It
stands on a different footing when compared to 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)(a) of the 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 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 Ext.P1 order.
8. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that although the petitioner had already executed a
bond for keeping the peace, in terms of an order passed under Section
126 of B.N.S.S., the said fact was not properly taken note of by the
jurisdictional authority while passing the externment order.
2025:KER:92596
According to the counsel, as the petitioner had already executed a
bond as stated above, there was no necessity to pass an externment
order. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted that, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on
11.06.2025, the petitioner had executed a bond for keeping the peace
in pursuance of an order passed by the executive Magistrate under
Section 126 of B.N.S.S. Evidently, the present externment order,
which is under challenge in this Writ Petition was passed while the
subsistence of the said bond.
9. Undisputedly, an order under preventive detention laws is a
drastic measure against a citizen as the same has a heavy bearing on
his personal and fundamental rights. When an effective remedy is
available to prevent a person from indulging in criminal activities, an
order under preventive detention laws is not at all warranted and
impermissible. In the case at hand, even before the passing of the
impugned order, the petitioner executed a bond under Section 126 of
B.N.S.S., undertaking to keep the peace. There is nothing to show
that after the execution of the said bond, the petitioner had involved
in any criminal activities. Therefore, it is discernible that the action
under the ordinary criminal law was sufficient to deter the petitioner
from engaging in further criminal activities. In the said background,
we are of the view that an order under KAA(P) Act was not at all
2025:KER:92596
necessitated and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
Resultantly, Ext.P1 order is set aside, and the petition stands
allowed.
SD/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
SD/-
sab JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
2025:KER:92596
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1602 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B3-
13122/2025/TSR DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT
