Bombay High Court
Bandu S/O. Sitaram Babhulkar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 12 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp1170.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1170 OF 2017
Bandu s/o. Sitaram Babhulkar,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Private,
r/o. Indira Nagar, Pandarkawada,
Tq.Kelapur, District Yavatmal. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
Through Additional Collector/
Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate,
Kelapur. .......... RESPONDENT
____________________________________________________________
Mr.P.K.Bezalwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.D.P.Thakre, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
____________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 02:03:36 :::
2 wp1170.17.odt
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 12th December, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged impugned order dt.8.12.2017
passed by the Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Executive
Magistrate, Kelapur. The petitioner is externed for the period from
9.12.2017 to 14.12.2017 from the jurisdiction of Police Station,
Pandharkawada.
3. It is submitted that the respondent passed the impugned
order dt.8.12.2017 without giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. The impugned order is passed u/s.144 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure alleging that the petitioner is engaged in
commission of offences punishable under the Bombay Prevention of
3 wp1170.17.odt
Gambling Act and therefore, there is possibility of breach of public
peace and tranquility.
4. It is submitted that wife of petitioner is contesting
election. The petitioner is a social worker. He has to campaign in the
election for his wife. Intentionally, the impugned order is passed so
as to deprive him to support his wife. At last, it is prayed to quash
and set aside the impugned order dt.8.12.2017.
5. Heard Mr.P.K.Bezalwar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.D.P.Thakre, learned A.P.P. For Respondent/State..
6. Perused the impugned order. From the perusal of the
impugned order, it is only stated that the petitioner used to play
gambling. Some cases are pending against the petitioner in respect of
the offences punishable under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling
Act. Nothing is stated in the impugned order that presence of
petitioner is dangerous to the public due to some other
crimes/offences. Offences under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling
Act are not so serious which would cause alarm or breach of peace. It
appears from the impugned order that no any opportunity of hearing
4 wp1170.17.odt
was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Prima
facie, the impugned order shows that the petitioner is externed from
the jurisdiction of Police Station, Pandharkawada for the period from
9.12.2017 to 14.12.2017 during the election period. This order
appears to be mala fide because wife of the petitioner is contesting
election. Nothing is on record to show that presence of petitioner is
dangerous to public and would cause any breach of public peace or
tranquility. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and
set aside. We, therefore, pass the following order.
// ORDER //
The petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (i) of the Criminal Writ Petition.
We hereby quash and set aside the
impugned order passed by the respondent in
externment proceedings u/s.144(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure bearing No.61 of 2017,
dt.8.12.2017.
5 wp1170.17.odt
Hamdast is granted.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
6 wp1170.17.odt
