[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.M Manaf vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:11427
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 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 175 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
K.M MANAF
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, KARIYAMPURAM VEEDU, NEAR MOSCO
CHURCH, CHALAKKAL, KEEZHUMADU, ALUVA, PIN - 683105
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.H.HANIS
SMT.T.N.LEKSHMI SHANKAR
SMT.NANCY MOL P.
SMT.NEETHU.G.NADH
SMT.RIA ELIZABETH T.J.
SHRI.SAHAD M. HANIS
SHRI.MUHAMMAD A. P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
REVENUE TOWER,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, PIN - 682031
3 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, KAAPA, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA,ERNAKULAM DIST,
PIN - 682026
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.175 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:11427
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging Ext.P2 externment order dated 15.12.2025, 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 has been interdicted from entering the
limits of the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, for a period of one
year from the date of the receipt of the order. However, as per the order
of the Advisory Board dated 14.01.2026, the period of externment was
reduced to three months from 08.12.2025, and thereafter the petitioner
was directed to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Aluva, on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for another
three months.
2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities, that on 12.11.2025, the District Police Chief, Ernakulam
Rural submitted a proposal for 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, 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.
W.P(Crl). No.175 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:11427
3. The authority considered eight cases in which the petitioner
got involved in passing the externment order. The case registered
against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity and
considered by the authority for passing the externment order is crime
No.1939/2025 of Aluva East Police Station, registered, alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 285, and
351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Ext.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
According to the counsel, there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the
proposal as well as in passing the externment order, and the said delay
would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of the externment order. The learned counsel further
contended that the petitioner's father is in a critical state of health, and
therefore, modification of the impugned order is highly necessary to
enable the petitioner to provide necessary medical care to his father.
On these premises, it was urged that the externment order is liable to
be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
W.P(Crl). No.175 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:11427
externment order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after due
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well
as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Public Prosecutor,
there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in
passing the externment order as contended by the petitioner. The
learned Public Prosecutor further urged that the detaining authority
passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction, and no interference is warranted in the said
order.
7. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that it was after
taking into account the petitioner's involvement in criminal activities
that the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, has mooted the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the
petitioner. Altogether, eight cases in which the petitioner got involved
formed the basis for passing the externment order. Out of the said
cases, the case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.1939/2025 of Aluva East Police Station,
registered, alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 296(b), 285, and 351(2) of BNS. The alleged incident
constituting the last prejudicial activity occurred on 30.08.2025, and he
was arrested and released on the same day. The District Police Chief,
Ernakulam Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner on 12.11.2025.
W.P(Crl). No.175 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:11427
Subsequently, the externment order was passed on 15.12.2025.
8. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly shows
that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in
passing the externment order. However, we are not unmindful of the
fact that there is a delay of more than two months in mooting the
proposal from the date of occurrence of the last prejudicial activity.
While considering the said delay, it cannot be undermined that
altogether eight cases were considered by the authority for passing the
externment order. Therefore, some minimum time is naturally required
to collect and verify the details of the cases in which the petitioner got
involved and hence, the short delay that occurred in mooting the
proposal as well as in passing the externment order is only negligible.
9. Moreover, unlike in the case of an order of detention
passed under Section 3(1) 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. It stands on a different footing when compared to
an order of externment. We are cognizant that Section 15 of the KAA(P)
Act also visits the person concerned with an intrusion to 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,
W.P(Crl). No.175 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:11427
when a detention order under Section 3 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 Section 3 and Section 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 Ext.P2
order.
10. As an alternative to setting aside the externment order, the
learned counsel for the petitioner sought modification of the said order
by highlighting the health condition of the petitioner's father. According
to the petitioner, his father is a heart patient and requires urgent
treatment. The learned counsel urged that the presence and assistance
of the petitioner are highly necessary for the treatment of his father. In
order to substantiate the said contention, a medical certificate issued
by Samaritan Hospital, Pazhanganad, has also been produced along
with the writ petition.
11. While considering the question as to whether any
modification is required to be made to the externment order on the
W.P(Crl). No.175 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:11427
aforesaid ground, it is to be noted, at the outset, that the order itself
provides that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the District Police
Chief, Ernakulam Rural, in cases of marriage or death of near relatives
or for the purpose of treatment of close relatives. Therefore, if the
petitioner has any grievance in the above regard, he can very well
approach the District Police Chief concerned. Needless to say, the
District Police can grant permission only upon being satisfied that the
request is bona fide, after considering the relevant medical records. In
any event, upon a perusal of the treatment records made available
before us, it is prima facie discernible that the petitioner's father has
been under treatment for chest pain since 2021, and there is nothing on
record to indicate that his condition has presently worsened. Therefore,
we are of the view that no interference is warranted with the impugned
order on the ground of the petitioner's father's health condition.
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
W.P(Crl). No.175 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:11427
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 175 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
24.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KAAPA-
21001/2025/ER DATED 15.12.2025 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.01.2026 IN O.P.NO.268/2025 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED
18.12.2025 ISSUED BY SAMRITAN HEART
INSTITUTE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAZHANGANAD,
ERNAKULAM
