Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. 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 said case occurred on 10.05.2025, and in the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail on 30.06.2025. Thereafter it was on 11.07.2025, the District Police Chief, Palakkad, forwarded the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the KAA(P) Act against the petitioner. After complying with all the procedural formalities, the jurisdictional authority passed the order of externment on 31.07.2025, whereby the petitioner was restrained from entering the limits of Revenue District Palakkad, for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority, while passing the order, did not take note of the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in the last case registered against him. According to the counsel, the jurisdictional authority also failed to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by the court at the time of granting bail. While considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in the above regard, it is to be noted that no law precludes the jurisdictional authority to pass an order of externment against a person who is already on bail. However, when an order of externment is passed against a person who is on bail, it is imperative upon the authority to take note of the said fact and to consider whether the bail conditions imposed on such a person while granting bail by the court are sufficient to prevent the externee from being involved in criminal activities. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen that in the impugned order itself, the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. However, the mentioning of the said fact alone is not sufficient to pass an order of externment against a person.

9. Undisputedly, an order of externment has a heavy bearing on the personal as well as fundamental rights of a citizen. Such an order would certainly restrict the free movement of a citizen, and he would be even prevented from entering his house. Therefore, the orders under preventive detention laws can be passed only when it is satisfied that proceedings under ordinary criminal laws are not sufficient to prevent a person from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, when a person is already on bail on stringent conditions, it is incumbent upon the part of the jurisdictional authority to consider whether the bail conditions imposed on him in the bail order would be sufficient to deter him from repeating criminal activities. In short, the jurisdictional authority could legally pass an order of externment under the KAA(P) Act, against a person who is already on bail, only after being satisfied that the said conditions are insufficient to restrain the petitioner from being involved in further criminal activities.

10. Now, while reverting to the case at hand, in the impugned order, it is specifically stated that the petitioner is already on bail in the case registered against him. However, even a holistic reading of the order does not indicate that the jurisdictional authority has properly applied its mind and considered whether the conditions imposed on the petitioner in the bail order would be sufficient to deter him from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is vitiated as the jurisdictional authority failed to consider the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner by the court while granting bail to him.

                  In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and Ext.P2 order of externment stands set aside.