[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Saleesh vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:12979
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 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 193 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SALEESH
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O SATHYAN, KOTIYAT HOUSE, CHIRAYUKOODE DESOM,
MADAKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JERRY MATHEW
SMT.DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
RANGE OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
3 THE DISTRICT RURAL POLICE SUPERINTENDENT
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
BY SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.193 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:12979
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, challenging Ext.P1 externment order dated 28.11.2025 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 was interdicted from entering the limits of
the Revenue District Thirssur 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 five months,
and thereafter the petitioner was directed to appear before the Station
House Officer, Mannuthy Police Station, on every Saturday between
10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. for another two months.
2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after
considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal
activities on 03.11.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur 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
jurisdictional authority, 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 the KAA(P) Act,
2007.
W.P(Crl). No.193 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:12979
3. The authority considered seven cases in which the petitioner
got involved 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.742/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station, alleging
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 127(1), 115(2),
329, 296(b) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS").
4. Heard Sri. Jerry Mathew, 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.P1 order 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. On the said premise,
it was urged that Ext.P1 externment order is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
Ext.P1 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,
there is no unreasonable delay in passing the impugned order, and
hence, the petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between
W.P(Crl). No.193 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:12979
the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped.
According to the learned Government Pleader, the jurisdictional
authority passed the Ext.P1 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 Ext.P1
order of externment is crime No.742/2025 of Mannuthy Police Station,
alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 127(1),
115(2), 329, 296(b) r/w 3(5) of BNS. The incident that led to the
registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity
occurred on 19.07.2025, and he was released on bail on the same day, as
the offences alleged in the said case are bailable. It was on 03.11.2025,
while the petitioner was on bail, that the District Police Chief, Thrissur
Rural, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
KAA(P)Act against the petitioner. Later, on 28.11.2025, Ext.P1
externment order was passed.
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 three months in mooting the proposal
from the date of occurrence of the last prejudicial activity. While
W.P(Crl). No.193 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:12979
considering the said delay, it cannot be undermined that altogether
seven cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for
passing Ext.P1 detention 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 a detention order passed
under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act, even if some delay has occurred in
passing an externment order, 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
externment order. 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, when a
detention order under Section 3 is compared with an externment order
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
W.P(Crl). No.193 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:12979
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.P1
order.
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 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.193 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:12979
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 193 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit p1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXTERNMENT
NO. B2-23735/2025/TSR DATED 28.11.2025
Exhibit p2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS
DATED 23-07-2025
Exhibit p3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS
DATED 14-11-2023
Exhibit p4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS
DATED 31-03-2020
Exhibit p5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
