[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Bilal Majeed vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:31251
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 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 529 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
BILAL MAJEED
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O MIJILAD SHEREEF NADUTHALAMURI PARAMBIL VEEDU,
HIDAYATH NAGAR BHAVAN, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 686101
BY ADV SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE,ERNAKULAM RANGE., PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
07.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.529 of 2026 :2:
2026:KER:31251
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, challenging Ext.P1 order of restriction dated 05.02.2026 passed
against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(b) of the Kerala Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. By
the said order, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Station
House Officer, Changanassery Police Station, on every Saturday between
10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. for one year from the date of receipt of the
order. However, the KAA(P) Act Advisory Board vide order dated
03.03.2026 modified the said order by reducing the period of restriction to
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, that the District Police Chief, Kottayam, on 14.11.2025,
submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner
under Section 15(1)(b) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised
officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam 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 three cases in which the petitioner
got involved in passing the restriction order. Out of the said cases, the case
registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity
is crime No.1941/2025 of Changanassery Police Station, alleging
W.P.(Crl.) No.529 of 2026 :3:
2026:KER:31251
commission of offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and
115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri. Abhijith Sreekumar, 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
Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P1 order
was passed in a casual manner, and it was without assigning any reason
that the jurisdictional authority passed a restriction order for a maximum
period of one year although the same was reduced to six months by the
Advisory Board. The learned counsel further urged that when the
maximum period of restriction was ordered, it was incumbent upon the
authority to show the reasons for the same. Nevertheless, no convincing
reason whatsoever has been assigned by the authority for passing the
maximum period of restriction. Moreover, the learned counsel further
submitted that the direction requiring the petitioner to appear before the
Station House Officer on every Saturday for a period of six months has
caused significant inconvenience and hardships to the petitioner. It was
contended that such a condition adversely affects the petitioner's means of
livelihood and materially impacts the subsistence of his dependent family
members. On these grounds, it was urged that the impugned order be set
aside in the interest of justice.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper
W.P.(Crl.) No.529 of 2026 :4:
2026:KER:31251
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Pleader,
there is nothing wrong in passing a restriction order for a period of one
year if the circumstances warrant it. The learned Government Pleader
further submitted that it is the 3rd externment order passed agisnt the
petitioner and therefore, the jurisdictional authority is fully justified in
passing a restirction order for a period of one year.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that it was after considering
the involvement of the petitioner in three cases registered against him that
the proceedings under the KAA(P) Act were initiated against him. Out of
the three cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1941/2025 of Changanassery Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 115(2) of BNS.
The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on
05.09.2025. It was on 14.11.2025, that the District Police Chief, Kottayam,
mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act
against the petitioner. The restriction order was issued on 05.02.2026. The
sequence of events narrated above clearly reveals that there is no
unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1
order. Similarly, the records reveal that the impugned order was passed
after scrupulously complying with the procedural safeguards provided
under the KAA(P) Act.
8. The main dispute that revolves around this writ petition is
with respect to the period of restriction ordered by the jurisdictional
W.P.(Crl.) No.529 of 2026 :5:
2026:KER:31251
authority. As already stated, the main grievance of the petitioner is that it
was without assigning any reason that the maximum period of restriction
was ordered. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted that
the scope of interference by a court of law in the subjective as well as
objective satisfaction arrived at by the jurisdictional authority that passed
an order of restriction is too limited. Moreover, unlike an externment
order or a detention order, a restriction order passed under Section 15(1)
(b) of the KAA(P) Act has only a limited and comparatively minimal impact
on the personal and fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore,
ordinarily, it is not desirable to interfere with the period of restriction
imposed by the jurisdictional authority. However, where it is demonstrated
that the duration of such restriction has occasioned grave prejudice or
undue hardship, the Court may justifiably interfere and reduce the period.
9. In the case at hand, although the jurisdictional authority, as
per Ext.P1 order had directed the petitioner to appear before the SHO on
every Saturday for one year, the said order was modified by the Advisory
Board and he was directed to appear before the Station House Officer on
every Saturday for six months from 09.02.2026, the date of receipt of
Ext.P1 order. The direction to appear before the Station House Officer on
every Saturday appears to us somewhat harsh. Considering the hardship
and inconvenience that would be caused to the petitioner in complying with
such a direction, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to modify
the same by directing the petitioner to appear before the Station House
Officer concerned on the first and third Saturday of every month for a
period of six months from 09.02.2026.
W.P.(Crl.) No.529 of 2026 :6:
2026:KER:31251
Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, the writ petition is allowed
in part, and Ext.P1 order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall
appear before the Station House Officer, Changanassery Police Station, on
the first and third Saturday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 12:00
p.m., for a period of six months from 09.02.2026.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P.(Crl.) No.529 of 2026 :7:
2026:KER:31251
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 529 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KAAPA-
21225/2025/ER DATED 05.02.2026 ISSUED
BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
03.03.2026 PASSED BY THE ADVISORY BOARD
