Preventive detention under KAA(P) Act is justified in light of recurrent criminal activity despite existing legal measures.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

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 Thiruvananthapuram City for a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order.

Section 15 (1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007, before the authorised officer, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, after considering the petitioner’s recurrent involvement in criminal activities. For the purpose of initiating such proceedings, the petitioner was classified as a “known goonda” as defined under Section 2 (o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

Sections 2 0(b)(ii)(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

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 submits that Ext. P1 order was passed on an improper consideration of facts and without proper application of the mind. According to the counsel, there was an inordinate delay both in mooting the proposal and in passing the impugned order, thereby snapping the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment. The learned counsel further contends that the jurisdictional authority ought to have duly considered the fact that the petitioner had already executed a bond for keeping peace underSection 107 of the Cr.P.C., and that the said proceedings were sufficient to prevent the petitioner from engaging in criminal activities. According to the counsel, since those proceedings themselves were adequate to deter the petitioner from further criminal involvement, resorting to an externment order under the preventive detention law was wholly unwarranted.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits 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 was no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the impugned order, and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of externment was snapped. It was further submitted that even after executing a bond under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner continued to engage in criminal activities, which justified the jurisdictional authority in passing the externment order notwithstanding the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C.

7. As evident from the records, a total of six cases formed the basis for passing Ext. P1 externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the petitioner in respect of the last prejudicial activity is Crime No. 552/2025 of Nemom Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 22.04.2025, and in that case, the petitioner was arrested and released on bail on the same day. On 28.07.2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, forwarded a proposal for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under the KAA(P) Act. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.08.2025, calling upon him to show cause why action under Section 15 (1)(a) of the KAA(P) Act should not be taken against him. To afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, he was directed to appear before the jurisdictional authority. In response, the petitioner appeared