[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rejin P Raj vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:97047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1708 OF 2025
CRIME NO.817/2025 OF Ollur Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER:
REJIN P RAJ
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, PALLIPURAM HOUSE, POTTA DESOM, POTTA
VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680722
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL
SMT.ARCHANA VIJAYAN
SHRI.SEBASTIN
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, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THRISSUR RURAL, CHALAKUDY,
KERALA, PIN - 680307
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680307
BY ADVS.
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS - PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1708 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:97047
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 externment order dated
29.09.2025, 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 the revenue district of
Thrissur for a period of one year 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, that on 17.09.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur
Rural 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, Thrissur
Range. For initiation of the said proceedings, the petitioner was
classified as a "known rowdy" as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of
the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered four cases in which the petitioner
got involved in passing the externment order. The case registered
WP(Crl)No.1708 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:97047
against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity and
considered by the authority for passing the impugned externment
order is crime No.817/2025 of Ollur Police Station, registered,
alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 333,
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 309(6), 351(3), 49 r/w 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri. Sarath Babu Kottakal, 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.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and
without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to the counsel, there is an unreasonable
delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the externment
order, and the said delay would certainly snap the live link between
the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order.
On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of
externment is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor 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 Public
WP(Crl)No.1708 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:97047
Prosecutor, there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the
proposal or in passing the externment order as contended by the
petitioner. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the detaining
authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is
warranted in the said order.
7. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that it was
after taking into account the petitioner's involvement in criminal
activities that the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, has mooted
the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act
against the petitioner. Altogether, four cases formed the basis for
passing the impugned order. Out of the said cases, the case
registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No.817/2025 of Ollur Police Station, registered,
alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 333,
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 309(6), 351(3), 49 r/w 3(5) of BNS. The
alleged incident constituting the last prejudicial activity occurred on
17.05.2025, and he was arrested on 18.05.2025. Later, he was
released on bail on 11.07.2025. The District Police Chief, Thrissur
Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
KAA(P) Act against the petitioner on 17.09.2025. Subsequently, the
externment order was passed on 29.09.2025. The sequence of the
events narrated above clearly shows that there is no unreasonable
delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment
WP(Crl)No.1708 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:97047
order. However, we are not unmindful of the fact that there is a delay
of four months in mooting the proposal from the date of occurrence
of the last prejudicial activity.
8. While considering the said delay, it is to be noted that
from the date of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the last
prejudicial activity till 11.07.2025, the petitioner was under judicial
custody. As the petitioner was in jail in the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity, obviously, there was no basis
for any apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities
by him. Therefore, the delay that occurred during that period is
liable to be discarded. Moreover, four cases formed the basis for
passing Ext.P2 externment order. Therefore, some minimum time is
naturally required to collect and verify the details of the cases in
which the petitioner got involved.
9. Moreover, 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 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,
WP(Crl)No.1708 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:97047
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.P2 order.
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.1708 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:97047
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1708 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE NO. B2-19836/2025/TSR DATED
20.09.2025 OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR
Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTERNMENT
ORDER NO. B2-19836/2025/TSR DATED
29.09.2025 OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR
