The jurisdictional authority must assess bail conditions sufficiency before issuing an externment order against a person already on bail.

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)(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 Palakkad Revenue District, 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, Palakkad submitted a proposal for the 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 proceedings, the petitioner has been classified as a “known rowdy” as defined under Section 2 (p)(iii) of the KAA(P) Act, 2007.

3. The authority considered three cases in which the petitioner got involved while passing the externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.492/2025 of Kollengode Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri. T. K. Sandeep, 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 proper application of mind. According to the counsel, 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 seriously taken note of by the jurisdictional authority. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the petitioner was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to consider whether the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner in the said bail order would be sufficient to deter him from repeating criminal activities. It was further contended that the jurisdictional authority could legally pass an order of externment under the KAA(P) Act only after being satisfied that the said conditions are insufficient to restrain the petitioner from being involved in further criminal activities. However, according to the counsel, the jurisdictional authority did not consider the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on the petitioner and mechanically passed the impugned order.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the externment order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and after entering on the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, all the procedural safeguards were complied with while passing the order of externment against the petitioner, and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. As revealed from the records, altogether three cases in which the petitioner got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P2 externment order. Out of the said cases considered by the jurisdictional authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.492/2025 of Kollengode Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 110 r/w 3(5) of BNS . The incident that led to the registration of the sa