Kerala High Court
Saju S vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:70684
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 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/31ST BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1182 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAJU S, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O SIVANANDAN, PANCHAMI VEEDU, CHEMMANNIKUZHI,
NARUVAMOOD, PALLICHAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
SHRI.AZAD SUNIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, RANGE
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:70684
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL. VIKAS BHAVAN, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, NARUVAMOODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695528
SRI.K.A.ANAS GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:70684
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 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 Thiruvanthapuram Revenue District, for a
period of one year from the date of the receipt of the order.
However, the Advisory Board vide its order dated 29.07.2025,
modified the said order, and the period of externment was reduced
to a period of six months from one year.
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, Thiruvananthapuram Rural
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,
Thiruvananthapuram Range. For initiation of proceedings, the
petitioner has been classified as a "known rowdy" as defined under
Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:70684
3. The authority considered three cases in which the
petitioner was 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.358/2025 of Naruvamoodu Police
Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 333, 351(3) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri.V.Vinay, 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.P3 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. On these premises,
it was urged that the impugned order of externment is liable to be
set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:70684
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
externee 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 in the impugned 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.358/2025 of Naruvamoodu
Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 333, 351(3) of
BNS. The date of occurrence of the said case was on 02.04.2025.
The records further reveal that the petitioner got anticipatory bail in
the said case on 10.04.2025. It was on 08.05.2025, the proposal for
initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was mooted by the
sponsoring authority. Later the the impugned order was passed on
20.06.2025. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:70684
indicates that there is no undue delay either in mooting the proposal
or in passing the externment order.
8. Undisputedly, Ext.P3 order of externment was passed
while the petitioner was on bail in the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity. As already stated, the petitioner got
anticipatory bail in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity on 10.04.2025 as per the order of the Additional
Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Since, the petitioner was on
bail, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to consider
the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner by
the court while passing an externment order under KAA(P) Act.
Through a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that
orders under preventive detention laws can be resorted to only
when the remedies available under the ordinary criminal laws are
not sufficient to deter a person from engaging in criminal activities.
This is particularly when orders under preventive detention laws
have a heavy bearing on the fundamental as well as personal rights
of an individual. In view of the said matter, when an order of
externment is passed against a person who is already on bail, it is
imperative for the jurisdictional authority to take note of the said
fact and to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on
the petitioner. Only when it is satisfied that those conditions are
insufficient to deter a person from being involved in criminal
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:70684
activities, then only the jurisdictional authority shall pass orders
under preventive detention laws, including an externment order.
9. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case
at hand, it can be seen that in Ext.P3 order, the fact that the
petitioner is on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity is
specifically adverted to. However, the sufficiency of the bail
conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional
authority. A perusal of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge
dated 10.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner clearly
shows that a condition that the petitioner shall not enter the Police
Station limits of Naruvamoodu Police Station, has already been
imposed. Similarly, vide order dated 31.05.2025, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, modified the said
condition to the effect that the petitioner shall not enter the
premises of the temple where the incident in the case with respect
to the last prejudicial activity occurred. However, the said condition
as well as the subsequent modification of the same were not
adverted to in the externment order. Therefore, it is liable to be held
that the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not at all considered
by the jurisdictional authority while passing Ext.P3 externment
order. Non-application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional
authority is apparent in this case.
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:70684
In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and Ext.P3 order
stands set aside.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:70684
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1182/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
08.05.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
09.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SIT-
8556/2025/TR DATED 20.06.2025 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO.146/2025
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
KAAPA ADVISORY BOARD
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
29.07.2025 IN O.P NO.146/2025 OF THE
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
01.01.2024 GIVEN BY THE MR. PRASAD
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.157/2024 OF NARUVAMOOD POLICE
STATION
Exhibit P8 The true copy of the order dated
10.04.2025 in Cr.M.C No.1018/2025 of
the Adtl. Sessions Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram
Exhibit P9 The true copy of the order dated
31.05.2025 in Cr.M.P no.1832/2025 in
Cr.M.C No.1018/2025 of the Adtl.
Sessions Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram
WP(Crl.) No.1182/2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:70684
