Bombay High Court
Sudesh @ Micheal Dinesh Raut vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 8 September, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
CRWP610.17-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 610 OF 2017
PETITIONER :- 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.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Nagpur.
2. Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Sakkardara Division, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Mir Nagman Ali, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 08.09.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, 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.
2. By this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenges the
order of his externment, dated 07/07/2017 externing the petitioner
from Nagpur City for a period of two years.
CRWP610.17-Judgment 2/4
3. A notice was served on the petitioner under section 59 of
the Maharashtra Police Act on 03/06/2017 asking him as to why he
should not be externed. In the said notice, a reference was made by the
respondent No.1 to the offences pending against the petitioner and the
in-camera statements of the witnesses recorded by the respondent No.1.
The petitioner was asked by the said show cause notice as to why he
should not be externed for having committed the offences that were
mentioned in item Nos.1 to 7 of the chart, during the year 2014 to
2017. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not
be externed as the witnesses are not ready to come forward to tender
evidence against him due to the fear that their life or property would be
put in danger. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and
stated that he was falsely implicated in the said offences. The
respondent No.1 however passed the impugned order dated
07/07/2017 externing the petitioner out of Nagpur City for two years.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is released on bail in all the crimes that are pending
against him and he is regularly attending the court. It is stated that the
petitioner has been externed out of Nagpur City without considering
that he has to attend the matters that are pending in the Nagpur courts.
It is stated that in the show cause notice the respondent No.1 had not
CRWP610.17-Judgment 3/4
stated that the movements or the acts of the petitioner were causing or
would cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property. It is stated
that it was necessary for the respondent No.1 to state in the notice that
the petitioner was engaging or was about to be engaged in the
commission of offences involving force or violence. It is stated that in
the show cause notice, it is only mentioned that the witnesses are not
ready to depose against him due to the fear to their life or property. It
is submitted that though the impugned order is based on the recording
of a satisfaction that the petitioner would be engaged in the commission
of the offences punishable under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Penal
Code, the respondent No.1 had not stated so in the notice served on the
petitioner under section 59 of the Act. It is stated that in the
circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
5. Shri Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the respondents, supported the impugned order. It is submitted that
since the petitioner was involved in serious offences and since the
witnesses were not ready to tender evidence against him, he was rightly
externed.
6. It appears on a reading of the provisions of the Act, the
show cause notice and the impugned order that the respondent No.1
CRWP610.17-Judgment 4/4
has not mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner is
engaged and is about to be engaged in the commission of offences
punishable under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Penal Code. It is
also not stated in the show cause notice under which clause of section
56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, the petitioner was liable to be
externed. In the show cause notice, it is only mentioned that the
witnesses are not ready to come forward to tender evidence against the
petitioner. It is however not stated that the petitioner is engaged or
would commit the offences punishable under the chapters of the Penal
Code as mentioned in clause 56(1)(b) of the Act. In the circumstances
of the case, since the show cause notice does not state that the
petitioner is proposed to be externed as he is causing or is likely to
cause alarm, danger or harm to the persons or property or that he is
engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of the offences
involving force or violation, the petitioner did not have the proper
opportunity to show cause against his proposed externment.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 07/07/2017 is hereby quashed
and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
