The court upheld the authority's discretion in assessing criminal involvement for externment, affirming the importance of subjective satisfaction in such determinations despite claims of subsequent settlements.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948 WP(CRL.) NO. 457 OF 2026 PETITIONER:

PAVANDAS AGED 24 YEARS S/O PUSHKARADAS, PANDARAN VEEDU, PALAZHI DESOM, KARAMUKK VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680613 BY ADVS.

SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SMT.B.ANUSREE SHRI.JOEL CHALAMANA SHRI.ASIF IRFAN SHRI.ASWIN NANDA A.

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THRISSUR POLICE RANGE , THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680001

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF THRISSUR RURAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680125 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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 externment order dated 09.01.2026, passed against the petitioner under Section 15 (1) r/w 15(5) 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 Thrissur 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 22.11.2025, the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural submitted a proposal for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 15 (1) r/w 15(5) 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 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 for passing the externment order. Out of the said cases, 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. 790/2025 of Anthikkad Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 127(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “ BNS ”).

4. Heard Sri. Vishnu Bhuvanendran, 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. P2 order was passed on an improper appreciation of facts and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. It is contended that the petitioner is not involved in the case registered as Crime No. 859/2023 of Vadanappilly Police Station. It is further submitted that, in the said case, the petitioner arrayed as the first accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Thrissur, primarily on the basis of the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had been implicated due to a misunderstanding and that the complainant had no subsisting grievance against him. The learned counsel urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned externment order without taking into account the aforesaid material fact. It is further contended that, in view of the settlement between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, the said crime ought not to have been relied upon by the authority while issuing the externment order. The learned counsel further submitted that out of the three cases considered