1 crwp108.113.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.108/2017
Rajesh s/o Govindrao Mandve,
aged 28 years, occ. Private,
r/o c/o Raju Mahadeorao Olikar,
Arvi, Dist. Wardha. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-2, Amravati City, Amravati.
2. Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Rajapeth Division, Rajapeth, Amravati.
3. Police Station Officer,
Police Station Kholapuri Gate,
Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.113/2017
Nilesh @ Bhurya Ashok Athawale,
aged 24 yeas, Occ. Private,
r/o c/o Gajanan Thukekar,
Civil Lines, Akola. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra, through
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-2, Amravati Division, Amravati.
2. Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Rajapeth Division, Rajapeth, Amravati.
3. Police Station Officer, Police Station
Kholapuri Gate, Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:41:25 :::
2 crwp108.113.17.odt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. R. Vyas, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Fulzele and Mr. S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutors
for the respondents-State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :- APRIL 7, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Identical orders of externment dated 28.09.2016 and 09.09.2016 are questioned by the petitioners before us. By these orders, the petitioners are externed from Amravati city limits and Amravati rural limits for the period of two years.
3. Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the orders are excessive inasmuch as the externment has been ordered from a larger area than necessary, without any application of mind. He further adds that the offences looked into lack live link with the object and hence the orders are unsustainable.
4. Respective Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State oppose the petition. They state that the previous conduct of both the petitioners and its impact are looked into. Our attention is invited ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:41:25 ::: 3 crwp108.113.17.odt to the relevant paragraphs in the order to show that there have been about 5 Indian Penal Code offences against both these petitioners and 4 and 3 protective actions respectively under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is further pointed out that in camera statements have also been recorded and those in camera statements support the externment. According to them, subjective satisfaction has been reached validly and therefore the orders need to be upheld.
5. The offences looked into in both the matters are committed in different years from 2005 up to the year 2014. These offences are registered at Kholapuri Gate Police Station or City Kotwali Police Station of Amravati. The last offence registered against both the petitioners is; Crime No.360/2015 under Section 143, 17, 148, 149, 207 and 302 of the IPC at City Kotwali Police Station. The preventive action lastly taken is of the year 2014.
The show cause notice has been issued for the first time in September-2015 and thereafter finally the order has been passed on 20.09.2016 and 09.09.2016.
6. Thus except for Crime No.360/2015, there is no other crime in the year 2016 up to date of issuance of show cause notice or then in the entire year 2015. No offence thereafter till date is pointed out. The ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:41:25 ::: 4 crwp108.113.17.odt contention that on the basis of that offence, externment from larger area could not have been ordered. Therefore, this aspect needed proper evaluation by the externing authority.
7. Here we have to take note of two in camera statements which find mention in the show cause notices as also the orders of exterment. Events deposed to by the in camera witnesses are not described and therefore dates thereof cannot be gathered either from a reading of the show cause notices or from the impugned orders. If these in camera statements are in relation to some crime committed by the petitioners in the year 2016, our observation that there is no live link may not hold good. However, it is certain that the material on record is insufficient for us to gather the said live link. The subjective satisfaction recorded and reflected in the impugned order therefore cannot be sustained.
8. This Court has in Criminal Writ Petition No.23/2016 and other matters has on 21.12.2016 looked into the other contention of Mr. R. R. Vyas, Advocate namely; when the offences are registered mostly in one police station, externment cannot be ordered out of the entire city and entire rural area of that district. That contention has been accepted in those matters. Here, the offence are registered in Kholapuri Gate Police Station and City Kotwali Police Station i.e. 2 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:41:25 ::: 5 crwp108.113.17.odt police stations and externment has been ordered out of the entire Amravati City as also Amravati rural area. In the impugned orders, the reason recorded is to maintain the law and order in the area of Police Station. Thus, there is no reference to City Kotwali Police Station in the impugned order dated 28.09.2016. However, in the order dated 09.09.2016, impugned in Criminal Writ Petition No. 113/2017, names of both the police stations appear. Corelation of this area/these areas with area from which externment is ordered is not demonstrated in any of these impugned orders.
9. Thus the orders do not show necessary ingredients to enable this Court to appreciate the application of mind by the externing authority. Taking overall view of the matter, we restrain both the petitioners from entering into the jurisdiction of Kholapuri Gate and City Kotwali Police Stations for a period of three months more from today. The authority shall pass appropriate orders after considering the reply furnished by them, in the light of the reported judgment of this Court on the point, to find out whether externment from larger area than the jurisdiction of the concerned police station itself is wanted.
10. Only to enable the respondents to pass such an order, we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 28.09.2016 and 09.09.2016. As already directed above, the petitioners shall not enter ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:41:25 ::: 6 crwp108.113.17.odt the area of City Kotwali Police Station and Kholapuri Gate Police Station for a period of three months more.
The petitioners shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone No. 2, Amravati city on 17.04.2017 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.) kahale ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:41:25 :::