The court upheld the externment order under the KAA(P) Act, affirming that procedural compliance and objective satisfaction were met despite the petitioner's bail status.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P2 order of externment 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].

2. By the said order, the petitioner was interdicted from entering the jurisdictional limits of the District Police Chief, Alappuzha for six months from the date of the receipt of the order.

3. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities, the District Police Chief, Alappuzha submitted a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007 before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Alappuzha 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.

4. The authority considered 4 cases in which the petitioner was involved for passing the order of externment. The last case considered for passing the impugned order of externment is crime No.800/2024 of Alappuzha North Police Station registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 34 IPC, wherein the petition was arrayed as the 1st accused.

5. Heard Sri. V. Vinay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Ext.P2 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 order of externment, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order is snapped. The learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity on stringent conditions, the said fact is not adverted to, in the impugned order and the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed in the said order was also not considered by the jurisdictional authority. It was further submitted that the jurisdictional authority should have considered the fact that already proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and the said proceedings would certainly be sufficient to prevent the petitioner from involving in criminal activities. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed in a casual manner without arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction, and hence warrants interference.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned 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 inordinate delay in 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. It was further submitted that all the procedural safeguards were complied with while passing the order of externment against the petitioner and hence, no interference is warranted.

8. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the last prejudicial activity considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext.P2 order of externment is crime No.800/2024 of Alappuzha North Police Station, registered against the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 03.06.2024, and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2024. Subseque