[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mukthar vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:9159
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 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 4 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
MUKTHAR
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O BASHEER KANJIRAPARAMBIL VEETTIL, THANIPPADAM,
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
SRI.K.S.STEJO
SMT.ABHIRAMI S.
SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT).
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ERNAKULAM RANGE, RANGE OFFICE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR
P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN -, PIN -
682033
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ALUVA RURAL, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, SH 16, OPP.
POWER HOUSE, ALUVA, KERALA, PIN - 683101
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl) No.4 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:9159
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging an order of externment dated
13.08.2025 passed against the petitioner under Section 15(1) 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 the District Police Chief,
Ernakulam Rural for a period of six months 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 25.06.2026, the District Police Chief, Ernakulam
Rural submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against
the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before
the jurisdictional authority, the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ernakulam 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.
3. The authority considered four cases in which the
petitioner got involved for passing the externment order dated
WP(Crl) No.4 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:9159
13.08.2025. The case registered against the petitioner with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.814/2025 of North
Paravur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), and 115(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
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 externment order dated 13.08.2025 was passed on improper
consideration of facts and without proper application of mind.
According to the counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting
the proposal as well as in passing the impugned order, and hence,
the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
externment is snapped. The learned counsel further urged that
the impugned order was passed on improper application of mind
and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. 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
there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in
WP(Crl) No.4 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:9159
passing the impugned 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. According to the
learned Public Prosecutor, the detaining authority passed the
externment order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted in the said
order.
7. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the last
prejudicial activity considered by the jurisdictional authority while
passing the externment order is crime No.814/2025 of North
Paravur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2) and 115(2) of BNS. The incident
which led to the registration of the case with respect to the last
prejudicial activity occurred on 07.05.2025, and in the said case,
the petitioner was arrested on 14.05.2025 and released on bail on
the same day, as the offences alleged in the said case are bailable.
Thereafter, it was on 25.06.2025, that the District Police Chief,
Ernakulam Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P)Act against the petitioner. Later, it
was on 13.08.2025, that the externment order was passed.
8. The sequence of events narrated above reveals that
there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in
WP(Crl) No.4 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:9159
passing the externment order. The proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was mooted by the sponsoring
authority within eighteen days of the last prejudicial activity, and
the externment order was passed within three months. Moreover,
an externment order under the KAA(P) Act has 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 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.
9. Moreover, unlike in the case of an order of detention
passed under Section 3 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. We are cognizant that
Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act also visits the person concerned
with an intrusion on his personal 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
WP(Crl) No.4 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:9159
under Section 3 of the KAA(P) Act 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 Sections 3(1) and 15(1)(a) are
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(1)(a) 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 the
minimal delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the
externment order after the date of the last prejudicial activity has
no serious impact at all, and the same is only liable to be discarded.
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
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
WP(Crl) No.4 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:9159
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.4 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:9159
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 4 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED
BY THE3RD RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTERNMENT ORDER
BEARING NO. KAAPA-12579/2025/ER
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
07.07.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO 1738-39/2024 DATED
21.03.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN
CRL.MC NO. 6863 OF 2025 DATED
08.09.2025
Exhibit P5 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 P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
22.08.2024 IN WP CRL NO.511/2024
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
09.09.2024 IN WP(CRL) NO. 884/2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
31.10.2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
