A jurisdictional authority must consider bail conditions before issuing an externment order under the relevant statute.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P1 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 Kollam 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, Kollam City 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, Thiruvananthapuram Range. For initiation of proceedings, the petitioner has been 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 while passing the externment order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1204/2025 of Anchalumood Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (ii)(b) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

4. Heard Sri. M. H. Hanis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

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 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 urged 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 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, there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the externment order as contended by the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 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.P1 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.1204/2025 of Anchalumood Police Station, registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections