The court established that an externment order can be issued even to individuals on bail if the authority ensures adequate consideration of bail conditions.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 order of externment dated 08.08.2025, 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 has been interdicted from entering the limits of Malappuram, Palakkad, and Thrissur Revenue District for a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. However, the Advisory Board modified the said order and the petitioner was interdicted from entering the limits of Palakkad Revenue District, for a period of six months.

2. The records available before us reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities, that on 23.07.2025, the District Police Chief, Palakkad submitted a proposal for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 (1)(a) of 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 goonda” as defined under Section 2 (o)(ii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered three cases in which the petitioner got involved for passing the externment order. The case registered against the petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity and considered by the authority for passing the impugned externment order is crime No.204/2025 of Valayar Police Station, registered, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)

(ii)B of the NDPS Act.

4. Heard Sri.C.Dheeraj Rajan, 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.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, as the impugned order was passed while the petitioner was on bail, it was imperative on the jurisdictional authority to take note of the said fact and to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on him before passing the order. The learned counsel urged that the jurisdictional authority ought to have passed such an order only after being satisfied that the said bail conditions are not sufficient to prevent the recurrence of prejudicial acts by the petitioner. However, the jurisdictional authority failed to consider whether the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner at the time of granting bail were sufficient to restrain him from repeating criminal activities. According to the learned counsel, there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the externment order, and the said delay would certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the externment order. The learned counsel further urged that the jurisdictional authority ought to have taken note of the fact that already proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “ BNSS ”), 2023, and the same would have been sufficient to prevent the petitioner from being involved in criminal activities. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of externment is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after due application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Government Plead