Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramiz Raja Ansar Patel vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8821 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 8821 Bom
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
Ramiz Raja Ansar Patel vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 17 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
                                            1                                      jg.wp 932.17.odt

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

                    Criminal Writ Petition No. 932 of 2017

Petitioner :                            Ramiz Raja Ansar Patel,
                                         Aged about 26 years, Occ. : Private, 
                                         R/o Paradise Colony, Amravati

                                             //  Versus //

Respondents :                      (1)  State of Maharashtra
                                          Through Deputy Commissioner of Police,
                                          Zone-1, Amravati. 

                                   (2)  Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                                          Gadgenagar Zone, Amravati.
  
 Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents


                                       CORAM      :  R. K. DESHPANDE AND
                                                       M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

Date of reserving the judgment : 13/11/2017. Date of pronouncing the judgment : 17/11/2017.

Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by

the respondent no. 1 dated 7-9-2017.

.....2/-

2 jg.wp 932.17.odt

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is acquitted in one criminal

case even though it is shown as pending against him. The show cause

notice dated 17-2-2017 and 24-7-2017 were not disclosed the allegations

made by the witnesses in in-camera statements. There was no

opportunity for the petitioner to rebut the allegations, therefore, it is

prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel Shri Ali for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Deshmukh for the respondents.

Learned counsel Shri Ali has placed reliance on the following judgments

of this Court.

(1) Nitin @ Babloo s/o Bhagwant Gade Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Police, Amravati and ors. [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1549],

(2) Sanjay s/o Balasaheb Ruptakke Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

[2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3983],

(3) Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir Vs. The Divisional Commissioner,

Amravati [2017 ALL MR (Cri) 4303] and

(4) Unreported judgment of this Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No.

77/2017 in the case of Kishor Sudhakar Khadse Vs. State of Maharashtra

and ors. dated 22-3-2017.

.....3/-

3 jg.wp 932.17.odt

5. From the perusal of order of copy of judgment in Criminal

Case No. 330/2016 placed on record at Annexure-IV, it is clear that the

said case is decided by the Court and the petitioner is acquitted even

though it is shown as pending. Therefore, in view of the judgment in the

case of Nitin @ Babloo s/o Bhagwant Gade Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Police, Amravati and ors. cited supra, it is clear that the respondent

no. 1 has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order.

6. No specific reference of in-camera statement was made in the

show cause notice and, therefore, petitioner was not in a position to file

his reply in view of the judgment in the case of Sanjay s/o Balasaheb

Ruptakke Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. cited supra. It appears that

passing reference is made about the allegations made by the witnesses'

in-camera statements.

7. For the reasons stated above, it appears that the impugned

order passed by the respondent no. 1 is liable to be quashed and set

aside. Hence, we pass the following order :

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order of externment dated 7-9-2017 passed by

the respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside.

.....4/-

4 jg.wp 932.17.odt

8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

                         JUDGE                              JUDGE



wasnik




                                                                                    ...../-





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter