An order under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act must consider existing bail conditions; failure to do so renders the order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order dated 17.02.2025 passed against the petitioner under Section 15(1)(b) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [KAA(P) Act for the sake of brevity]. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Shornur, on every Wednesday between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. for six months from the date of receipt of the said order.

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

3. The authority considered 8 cases in which the petitioner was involved for passing Ext. P1 order. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity committed by the petitioner is Crime No. 723/2024 of Thrithala Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 118(1) and 351(2) of 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 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 the order is snapped. The learned counsel further urged that though the petitioner was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity as well as in the last but one case, the fact that the petitioner was released on bail on those cases were not taken into consideration by the jurisdictional authority and also did not consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner at the time of granting bail. According to the counsel, the conditions clamped on the petitioner at the time of granting bail were sufficient to deter the petitioner from repeating criminal activities, and an order under KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated.

6. 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 either in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act or in passing the impugned order, and hence, the petitioner could not contend that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of Ext. P1 order was snapped. It was further submitted that all the procedural safeguards were duly complied with while passing Ext.P1 order, and hence, no interference is warranted.

7. On perusal of the records, it is gatherable that the last prejudicial activity considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass Ext. P1 order is Crime No.723/2024 of Thrithala Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 118(1) and 351(2) of BNS. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 15.10.2024. Formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded in the said case on 25.10.2024, and he was granted bail in the said case on 25.10.2024. Thereafter, it was on 15.01.2025, the District Police Chief, Palakkad, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. It was after complying the necessary procedural sa