This term occurs in AN.4.138 (PTS: A ii 137):
Katha~nca bhikkhave puggalo nika.t.thakaayo hoti anika.t.thacitto? Idha bhikkhave ekacco puggalo ara~n~ne vanapatthaani pantaani senaasanaani pa.tisevati. So tattha kaamavitakkampi vitakketi, vyaapaadavitakkampi vitakketi, vihi.msaavitakkampi vitakketi. Eva.m kho bhikkhave puggalo nika.t.thakaayo hoti anika.t.thacitto.
And how, bhikkhus, is a person nikaṭṭha by body and not nikaṭṭha by mind. Here, bhikkhus, some person resorts to lodgings in remote jungle wild areas in the forest, and there he thinks sensual thoughts, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of harming. Thus, bhikkhus, is a person nikaṭṭha by body and not nikaṭṭha by mind.
PED entry explains this term as:
Nikaṭṭha (adj.) [cp. Sk. nikṛṣṭa, ni+kasati] brought down, debased, low. As one kind of puggala (n -- kāya+ncitta) A ii.137. loc. nikaṭṭhe (adv.) near J iii.438= ThA 105 (v. 33) (=santike J iii.438).
However such interpretation doesn't make much sense.
Ole Holten Pind wrote:
Dines Andersen and Smith were evidently right when they defined anika.t.tha as not near, far from (the goal), and the cpd.s with citta as not present with one's mind and with kaaya as whose body is not present (scil. in the forest mode of life).
Here's the entry from the CPD he refers to:
a-nikaṭṭha, mfn., not near, far from (the goal); — °-kāya, mfn., whose body is not present (scil. in the forest mode of life); AN II 137,17 foll. — °-citta, mfn., not present with one's mind, ib. (= an-upa-viṭṭha-citta, Mp, but 'nikaṭṭhakāyo', ib. = niggata-a-nikaṭṭha).