The court upheld the power to extern an individual on bail, necessitating review of bail conditions without requiring explicit reproduction in the externment order.

JUDGMENT Jobin Sebastian, J.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P1 externment order dated 22.11.2025, 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 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 on 21.10.2025, the District Police Chief, Malappuram 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 two 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 externment order is crime No.477/2025 of Kolathur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections

22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. Heard Sri. Sadique P. P., 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 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, in the penultimate case registered against the petitioner, the quantity of contraband seized was 4.0 grams of ganja, which constitutes small quantity and the petitioner was convicted in the said case soley because of the reason that he pleaded guilty to the charge. Therefore, it is contended that the said case ought not to have been considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the externment order. On these premises, it was urged that the externment order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the externment 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 Pleader, it was after being satisfied that the conditions imposed on the petitioner at the time of granting bail were not sufficient to restrain him from engaging in criminal activities that the jurisdictional authority passed the externment order. According to the learned Government Pleader, the detaining authority passed the Ext.P1 order