Dhammadeep @ Dhamma Krishnarao ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9312 Bom

                                                   1               wp581.17.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 581 OF 2017

            Dhammadeep @ Dhamma Krishnarao Chimankar,
            aged about 34 years, Occ. Labourer,
            R/o. Siraspeth, Near Anand Boudha
            Vihar, Nagpur     ......              PETITIONER
                                  ...VERSUS...
 1.         State of Maharashtra,
            through Divisional Commissioner,
            Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
            Off. At Old Secretariate Building,
            Civil Lines, Nagpur. 
 2.         State of Maharashtra,
            Through Deputy Commissioner of Police,
            Zone-IV, Nagpur City, Nagpur.
 3.      State of Maharashtra,
         Through Police Station Officer,
         P.S.Imamwada, Nagpur......                                RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri O.K.Masurke, Advocate for Petitioner
 Shri M.K.Pathan, APP for Respondents
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                        M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
                                          th
                           Date       : 5     DECEMBER, 2017 .

 JUDGMENT (P.C.)

Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels

appearing for the parties.

2] The challenge in this petition is to the order

dated 08.02.2017 passed by the competent Authority

2 wp581.17.odt

externing the petitioner from the city of Nagpur for a period of

three years under Section 57(1)(a)(v) of the Maharashtra

Police Act. This order was challenged in Appeal No. 11 of

2017 and the Divisional Commissioner has dismissed the

appeal on 23.05.2017. Hence, the said order is also the

subject matter of challenge in this petition.

3] After hearing the learned counsels appearing for

the parties and after going through the material referred to in

the order of externment, we are of the view that the

externment period can be reduced to one year as the

petitioner has already undergone the period of 10 months of

externment.

4] In view of above, writ petition is partly allowed.

The orders impugned, challenged in this petition, are

modified and the period of externment stands reduced to one

year.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order

as to costs.

                                JUDGE                         JUDGE


 Rvjalit