Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:56322
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 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 701 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1404/2024 OF Tanur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.1545 OF 2024
OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 24 YEARS
S/O ABDULLA C.M CHERIYAMOITHEENAKATH, OSSAN
KADAPPURAM, TANUR P.O, MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 676302
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
SMT.ABHIRAMI S.
SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
TRISSUR RANGE, RANGE OFFICE, CHEMPUKAVU,
THRISSUR,, PIN - 680001
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:56322
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM,,
PIN - 676505
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:56322
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, challenging the order of externment dated 29.03.2025 passed
against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(a) r/w 15(5) 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 Malappuram Revenue District for a period of one
year from the date 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 District Police Chief, Malappuram, submitted a proposal
on 07.03.2025 for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner
under Section 15(1)(a) r/w 15 (5) of the KAA(P) Act before the
authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur
Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a
"known rowdy" as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. The authority considered six cases in which the petitioner
got himself involved while passing the order of externment. The last
case registered against the petitioner and considered by the authority
for passing the impugned order of externment is crime No.1404/2024
of Thanur Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 332(c), 126(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:56322
"BNS") and Section 7 r/w 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
4. Heard Sri.Navaneeth N Nath, 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.P4 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and
without proper application of mind. According to the counsel, there is
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. The
learned counsel further urged that although the petitioner was
released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity, the said fact was not taken into consideration by
the jurisdictional authority. Moreover, the jurisdictional authority failed
to consider whether the bail conditions imposed by the court on the
petitioner at the time of granting bail was sufficient to deter him from
engaging in further criminal activities. According to the counsel, the
conditions clamped on the petitioner at the time of granting bail were
sufficient to deter the petitioner from repeating criminal activities, and
an order under KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:56322
the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after
proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective
as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned
Government Pleader, there is no inordinate delay in passing the
externment order, and hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say
that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose
of externment was snapped. He further submits that the sufficiency of
the bail conditions was duly considered by the jurisdictional authority
and the impugned order was passed after arriving at a satisfaction that
there exists no conditions that would be sufficient to restrain the
externee from indulging in criminal activities.
7. On perusal of the records, it is evident that it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities, the District Police Chief, Malappuram, has mooted the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the
petitioner. Altogether, six cases formed the basis for passing the
impugned order. Significantly, an order of externment under Section
15(1)(a) of KAA(P) Act was earlier passed against the petitioner, and
after the cessation of the period of externment in the said order, the
petitioner got involved in another criminal activity, which resulted in
passing the present order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.1404/2024 of Thanur Police Station
registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:56322
punishable under Sections 332(c), 126(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(for short "BNS") and Section 7 r/w 8 of the POCSO Act.
8. The above-mentioned last prejudicial activity was committed
on 10.11.2024, and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested on
12.11.2024. Later he was released on bail in the said case on
08.01.2025. Thereafter it was on 07.03.2025, the District Police Chief,
Malappuram, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under KAA(P)Act against the petitioner. Accordingly, on 13.03.2025,
the jurisdictional authority issued a notice to the petitioner calling
upon him to show cause as to why an order of externment should not
be passed against him. In order to afford the petitioner an opportunity
of being heard personally, he was further directed to appear before the
jurisdictional authority on 22.03.2025. In response to the said notice,
the petitioner appeared before the jurisdictional authority on
22.03.2025 and he was heard in person. However, no written
representation was submitted by him. After considering the
submissions made, the jurisdictional authority passed the externment
order on 29.03.2025, by which the petitioner was interdicted from
entering the limits of Malappuram Revenue District for a period of one
year from the date of the order.
9. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that there
is no inordinate delay in passing the impugned order. It is true that
there was a delay of approximately four and a half months between the
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:56322
last prejudicial activity and issuance of the externment order.
However, it is pertinent to note that out of this period, about two
months, the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with the
last prejudicial activity. Therefore, the delay that occurred during this
period is justifiable, as it is unlikely that the petitioner would have
engaged in criminal activity while under judicial custody. 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 in mooting the proposal 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. We are
cognizant that Section 15 of the KAA(P) Act also applies to the person
concerned with an intrusion on his 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
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:56322
deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the nature of proceedings under
Sections 3 and 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 the order
of externment in this case.
10. The main contention pressed into service from the side of
the petitioner is that, though the petitioner was released on bail in the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, the fact that
the petitioner was released on bail was not taken into consideration by
the jurisdictional authority and the authority did not consider the
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner at the time
of granting bail. According to the counsel, the conditions clamped on
the petitioner at the time of granting bail in the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity were sufficient to deter the
petitioner from repeating criminal activities and therefore, an order
under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated.
11. While considering the above contention, it is to be noted
that there is no law that precludes the jurisdictional authority from
passing an order under KAA(P) Act against a person who is already on
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:56322
bail. However, when an order is passed against a person who is on bail,
it is incumbent upon the authority to take note of the said fact and to
consider whether the bail conditions imposed on such a person while
granting bail by the court are sufficient to prevent him from engaging
in criminal activities. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the
case at hand, it can be seen that it was after the release of the
petitioner on bail in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the
jurisdictional authority while passing the order should be cognizant of
the fact that the petitioner was on bail in the said case. Likewise, the
impugned order should reflect that the sufficiency of the bail conditions
imposed by the court while granting bail to the petitioner in the said
case was duly considered before passing Ext.P4 order. A perusal of the
impugned order reveals that in the said order, the fact that the
petitioner was released on bail in the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. Furthermore,
the impugned order explicitly states that the accused is in the habit of
engaging in criminal activities undeterred by the bail conditions
clamped on him by various courts while granting bail in the earlier
cases. Moreover, it is specifically stated in the impugned order that as
of now, there exist no bail conditions that would be sufficient to
restrain the petitioner from repeating criminal activities. Therefore,
we are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot contend that
the sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on him was not duly
considered by the jurisdictional authority.
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:56322
12. 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. We are further satisfied that the competent authority passed the
externment order after thoroughly verifying all the materials placed by
the sponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
order passed under Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act is vitiated in 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
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.701 of 2025 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:56322
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 701/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY
CERTIFICATE AND DISABILITY IDENTITY
CARD ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT IN ENROLLMENT
NO.3205/00000/2210/1783377 DATED
31.10.2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED
BY THE3RD RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 07.03.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWCASE NOTICE
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO
PETITIONER DATED 13.03.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTERNMENT ORDER
BEARING NO. B3-5322/2025/TSR ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
29.03.2025
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO 1738-39/2024 DATED
21.03.2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP
CRL NO.232 OF 2023 K. SURESH KUMAR
V/S STATE OF KERALA & OTHER DATED
10.07.2023
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
22.08.2024 IN WP CRL NO.511/2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
09.09.2024 IN WP(CRL) NO. 884/2024
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
31.10.2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
