[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ibrahim vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:3620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 19 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
IBRAHIM
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. ALIKUNJU, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, METHALA,
ASHAMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683549
BY ADVS.
SHRI.E.A.HARIS
SHRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER
SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL
SMT.AAGI JOHNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ERNAKULAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
3 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ERNAKULAM, RANGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION,PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, P. P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:3620
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against Ext.P4 order of externment
dated 24.11.2025, passed against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent,
invoking 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 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 the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, submitted a
proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under
Section 15(1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act before the authorised officer, the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range. For initiation of
proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a "known rowdy" as
defined under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act.
3. Altogether three cases in which the petitioner got involved
have been considered by the competent authority for passing Ext.P4
externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1362/2025 of
Kuruppampadi Police Station, registered alleging commission of
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:3620
offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (for short "BNS") and the petitioner was arrayed as the
2nd accused in the said case.
4. Heard Sri. E. A. Haris, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on
improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel further
submitted that there is unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as
well as in passing the externment order after the date of the last
prejudicial activity, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment.
On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order warrants
interference.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
there is no unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in
passing the externment order. According to the Public Prosecutor,
some minimal delay is inevitable while passing an order, especially
when it is the duty of the authority to ensure adherence to the natural
justice principles while passing such an order. It was further submitted
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:3620
that the authority needs a reasonable time to collect the details of the
cases in which the petitioner was involved, and therefore, the minimum
delay in submitting the proposal is quite natural, and the same is only
negligible.
7. As already stated altogether, three cases formed the basis
for passing Ext.P4 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1362/2025 of Kuruppampadi Police Station, registered alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(3) r/w
3(5) of BNS and the petitioner was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the
said. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred
on 16.04.2025. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on
11.09.2025. Subsequently, he was released on bail on 30.09.2025.
Notably, it was thereafter, on 13.10.2025, that the proposal for initiation
of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act was initiated against him.
Subsequently, on 24.11.2025, the externemnt order was passed.
Virtually, there is a delay of around six months in mooting the proposal
and more than seven months in passing the externment order after the
commission of the last prejudicial activity.
8. While considering the said delay, it is to be noted that the
case with respect to the last prejudicial activity was registered on
13.08.2025. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 11.09.2025
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:3620
and he was subsequently released on bail on 30.09.2025. As the
petitioner was in jail in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity from 11.09.2025 till 30.09.2025, there was obviously
no basis for any apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal
activities by him. Therefore, the delay that occurred during that period
is liable to be discarded. Moreover, three cases formed the basis for
passing the Ext.P4 externment order. Therefore, some minimum time is
naturally required to collect and verify the details of the cases in which
the petitioner got involved.
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, 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.
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:3620
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.P4
order.
10. However, it is evident that of the three cases considered by
the jurisdictional authority, the first was registered in the year 2021,
while the second and third were registered in the year 2025. The nature
of the offences alleged in those cases is not of a grave character.
Therefore, taking into account the aforesaid aspects, as well as the
family constraints highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
we are of the considered view that the period of externment deserves to
be reduced.
11. The Supreme Court in Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre v.
State of Maharashtra and Others [(2023) 14 SCC 707], while dealing
with a preventive detention order passed under the Maharashtra Police
Act, 1951 held that:
"On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while
passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must
mention the area or District or Districts, in respect of which the
order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is
required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain
in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years.
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:3620
Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent
authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint
order under Section 56. On the basis of the objective assessment
of the material on record, the authority has to record it subjective
satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific
period. When the competent authority passes an order for the
maximum permissible period of two years, the order of
externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent
authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction
about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the
maximum period of two years which is based on material on
record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment
dated 15th December, 2020 shows that it does not disclose any
application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the
subjective satisfaction of respondent No.2 on the basis of material
on record that the order of externment should be for the
maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the
maximum permissible period of two years is passed without
recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity
extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible
period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on
the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1)
of the Constitution of India."
12. Moreover, this Court in Dinchu Mohanan v. State of
Kerala and another [2015 (2) KHC 101] held that the court is
empowered to annul, amend, or confirm the order of externment passed
under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act. Keeping in mind the above
propositions of law and considering the nature and the gravity of the
offence attributed to the petitioner as well as his family constraints, we
are of the view that the impugned order requires modification
regarding the duration of the period of externment.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part, and Ext.P4
order is modified to the extent that the writ petitioner shall be
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:3620
interdicted from entering the limits of the District Police Chief,
Ernakulam Rural, for a period of three months from the date of receipt
of Ext.P4 order.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.19 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:3620
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 19 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT
DATED 20.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
13.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 24.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
