Sudesh @ Micheal Dinesh Raut vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5791 Bom

                                        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/-

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/-

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/-

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/-

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




                                                                                           ...../-