Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O. Govindrao Mandve vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 7 April, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
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
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
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
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
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
