1 jg.cri.wp 610.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 610 of 2017
Sudesh @ Micheal Dinesh Raut
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Private,
R/o. Vijayalaxmi Pandit Nagar,
PS Nandanvan, Nagpur
At present R/o C/o Anil Bhaiyyaji Raut,
Sindurwafa, Sakoli, Dist Bhandara. .... Petitioner
// Versus //
(1) State of Maharashtra
Through Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-4, Nagpur.
(2) Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Sakkardara Division, Nagpur. .... Respondents
Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 09-08-2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:07:25 :::
2 jg.cri.wp 610.17.odt impugned order of externment dated 7-7-2017 passed by the respondent no. 1. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nagpur(Sakkardara Division) issued show cause notice dated 3-6-2017 to the petitioner as to why he should not be externed. In the said notice, reference was made of in camera statements of witnesses.
The petitioner replied said notice on 19-6-2017 and submitted that he is respectable citizen. Offences alleged against him are pending. He is falsely involved in those crimes. He is not convicted in any of the offences/crimes. His entire family is depending on him. If he is externed, his entire family will be on the verge of starvation, therefore, it is requested to quash the notice.
It is submitted that so far as Crime No. 447/14, 3042/15, 249/15 and 405/15 are concerned, the charge-sheets have been filed in all the crimes. Said cases are pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. He is released on bail in aforesaid crimes. He is regularly attending the Courts. It is submitted that the petitioner is not convicted in any of the crime. Respondent without applying mind passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order has put fetters on the fundamental right of the petitioner to free movement and, therefore, writ petition is maintainable.
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:07:25 :::
3 jg.cri.wp 610.17.odt It is submitted that externment period in the impugned order is excessive. Respondent no. 1 without applying mind passed the impugned order. At last, it is submitted that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
Respondents have supported the impugned order by filing reply. It is submitted that opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Enquiry Officer has verified in camera statements of the witnesses. On the strength of the enquiry submitted by the Enquiry Officer, impugned order is passed after application of mind. It is submitted that the petitioner is causing alarm, danger and harm to the persons and property and, therefore, he is externed from the Nagpur City. At last, it is submitted that the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel Shri Ali for the petitioner. He has submitted that all the offences registered against the petitioner are of years 2014 and 2015. There is no recent offence registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the activity of the petitioner is in Nandanvan area. He is wrongly externed from whole Nagpur City, therefore, order is illegal. Learned counsel has submitted that in none of the crimes, the petitioner is convicted. There are only .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:07:25 :::
4 jg.cri.wp 610.17.odt four crimes registered against him for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. At last, Shri Ali, learned counsel submitted that externment for two years is very much excessive and, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.
Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Doifode for the respondents. He has submitted that presence of the petitioner in Nagpur City is dangerous to the public. There is every possibility of causing bodily harm and to the property. Witnesses are not coming forward to lodge complaint against him because of his criminal activities. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the respondent authority after making due enquiry passed the impugned order, hence, petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
From the submissions of both sides, it is clear that the petitioner is not convicted in any of the crime. Activity of the petitioner is in Nandanvan area. He could have been externed from that area only. The respondents have not taken into consideration this fact. Externing the petitioner for a period of two years is very much excessive, therefore, the impugned order needs to be modified. Hence, we pass the following order.
(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
.....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:07:25 :::
5 jg.cri.wp 610.17.odt
(ii) The impugned order is modified. Instead of externment period of two years, the petitioner be externed for a period of six months.
The petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
...../-
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:07:25 :::