Kerala High Court
Irshad vs Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 11 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:67648
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 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32313 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
IRSHAD
AGED 26 YEARS
SON OF MAJEED, MAKKALANTE PURAKKAL HOUSE,
KUTTAYI P.O, MANGALAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676562
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
OFFICE OF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE RANGE
OFFICE,THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
UP HILL POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676101
4 ADVISORY BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE
KERALA ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT
2007
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 'SREENIVAS',
VIVEKANANDA ROAD, PADAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI,
PIN - 682724
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:67648
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:67648
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P2 order of externment
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 was interdicted
from entering the limits of Malappuram Revenue District, for a
period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order.
However, the Advisory Board modified the said order, and the
period of externment was reduced to four months from the date of
the service of the impugned order and it is further directed that
after the expiry of the period of four months of externment, the
petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Tirur, on
every Sunday at 10 a.m., for the remaining period of two months.
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 for the 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 proceedings, the petitioner has been
classified as a "known rowdy" as defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:67648
the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
3. The authority considered three cases in which the
petitioner got involved while passing the order of externment. Out
of the said three cases, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.61/2025 of Tirur Police Station,
alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 309(4)
r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri.P.M Ziraj, 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 proper application of mind. According to the
counsel, though the petitioner was released on bail in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity on stringent
conditions, the said fact is not adverted to in the impugned order,
and the sufficiency of bail conditions was also not considered by
the jurisdictional authority while passing the order. According to
the counsel, in the bail order passed by the court, stringent
conditions were clamped on the petitioner, and those conditions
would certainly be sufficient to restrain the petitioner from
repeating criminal activities and therefore, an order of externment
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:67648
was not at all necessitated. On these premises, the learned counsel
urged that Ext.P2 order is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that 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, the sufficiency of the bail conditions
imposed by the court while granting bail to the petitioner in the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity was duly
considered by the jurisdictional authority, and it was after being
satisfied that those conditions are not sufficient to restrain the
petitioner from repeating criminal activities, the externment order
was passed. It was further submitted that all the procedural
safeguards were complied with while passing the order of
externment against the petitioner, and hence, no interference is
warranted with respect to Ext.P2 order.
7. While considering the rival contentions, it is to be
noted that the case registered against the petitioner with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.61/2025 of Tirur Police
Station, registered alleging commission of an offence punishable
under Section 309(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS. The incident that led to the
registration of the said case occurred on 05.01.2025. The records
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:67648
further reveal that the petitioner was arrested in that case on
20.02.2025 and released on bail on 25.04.2025. It was on
31.05.2025, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
KAA(P) Act was mooted by the sponsoring authority. Later, the
impugned order was passed on 19.06.2025. The sequence of the
events narrated above clearly indicates that there is no
unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the
externment order.
8. Undisputedly, Ext.P2 order of externment was passed
while the petitioner was on bail in the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, while passing the order, it
was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to take note of the
fact that the petitioner was on bail in the said case and also to
consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on him by
the court while granting bail to him. When an effective and
alternative remedy exists to prevent a person from repeating
criminal activities, resorting to an externment order is neither
warranted nor permissible. Therefore, since the petitioner is on
bail, it was imperative for the jurisdictional authority to consider
whether there exists any bail condition that would suffice to deter
the petitioner from engaging in criminal activities further.
9. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the facts
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:67648
in the present case, it can be seen that the impugned order, the
fact that the petitioner was released on bail in the last case
registered against him, is specifically adverted to. In the impugned
order, it is clearly mentioned that all the proceedings already
initiated against the petitioner under ordinary criminal law did not
yield any result, and the petitioner is involved in criminal activities
again. Therefore, a holistic reading of the impugned order reveals
that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order after
being convinced that proceedings under ordinary law, including the
bail conditions imposed on the petitioner, are not sufficient to
restrain him from repeating criminal activities. The impugned
order reveals that the antecedents of the petitioner and his
propensity to be involved in criminal activities persuaded the
jurisdictional authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction
regarding the necessity of passing the externment order.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
in the above regard will fail.
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. 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
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:67648
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
ANS
WP(C) No.32313 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:67648
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32313/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
NO. B3-11407/2025/TSR DATED 5.6.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. NO. B3-
11407/2025/TSR DATED 19.6.2025 ISSUED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 61/2025 OF TIRUR
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.8.2025
IN O.P.NO.151/2025 ISSUED BY THE
FOURTH RESPONDENT
