Rahmat Kahn @ Rammu Bismillah Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1925 Bom

 Judgment                                 1                         Cri.W.P.490.2018.odt


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

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 490 OF 2018


          Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah Khan,
          Aged about 48 years, Occu. - Auto driver,
          R/o. Chaman Chaoni, University Road,
          Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

                                                              .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

          Deputy Commissioner of Police,
          Zone - 1, Amravati,
          Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
                                                .... RESPONDENT
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri P. R. Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
      Ms. H. N. Jaipurkar, A.P.P. for the respondent.
 ______________________________________________________________

                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 29.01.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

for the parties.

Judgment 2 Cri.W.P.490.2018.odt

3. The first ground of attack raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the three offences which have been considered for

passing the impugned externment order, which were registered on

12.10.2017, 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 (Crime No. 344 of 2017 and

Crime No.352 of 2017 of Police Station, Nagpuri Gate and Crime

No.501 of 2017 of Police Station, Kotwali) were having no proximate

relation with the impugned order passed on 07.05.2018. He submits

that there must be a proximate relation between the offences

considered and the date on which the impugned order is passed so that

the object of the externment order is fulfilled. The second ground

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is about the cryptic

nature of the show cause notice. In this case there have been two show

cause notices, first of the date of 03.04.2018/09.04.2018 and the

second one of the date of 20.04.2018. He points out that the first show

cause notice does not make any reference to existence of statements of

confidential witnesses, the second show cause notice does make such a

reference but, it does not give any details or even the gist of the

material allegations made against the petitioner by the confidential

witnesses and therefore, the impugned order is illegal. The learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the view taken by this Court in

the case of Rahul Alias Pintu Alias Kalu Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Judgment 3 Cri.W.P.490.2018.odt

through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.,

2020(2) Mh.LJ (Cri.) 545.

4. Ms Jaipurkar, learned A.P.P. submits that the impugned

order fulfills the parameters laid down by the Full Bench of this Court

in the case of Sumit S/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe and Ors., Vs. Deputy

Commissioner of Police and Ors., 2019 CriLJ 2161.

5. If the first ground is considered independently, prima facie

substance would be found but, when it is considered in the light of the

statements of the confidential witnesses recorded during the course of

the inquiry, one would have to say that the material disclosed by these

statements keeps alive the link with the three offences registered

against the petitioner in October 2017 and therefore, these offences

together with the material available on record present a live-link to the

whole case justifying passing of an exterment order against the

petitioner. We say so because we have carefully perused the record of

the proceedings and considered statements of the confidential

witnesses available on the record. They do show that the relevant

material is in existence and this material has been considered and the

impugned order shows that this material has been appropriately

considered by the respondent and therefore, the subjective satisfaction

reached by the respondent on the basis of this material together with

Judgment 4 Cri.W.P.490.2018.odt

the three crimes registered against the petitioner cannot be said to be

something which has been arrived at arbitrarily and without

application of any mind. So far as subjective satisfaction is concerned,

the law is well settled (See the Full Bench Judgment in the case of

Sumit S/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe and Ors., Vs. Deputy Commissioner

of Police and Ors., 2019 CriLJ 2161) that it is not for this Court to

substitute the conclusion based upon subjective satisfaction of the

Authority just because another view is possible. All that is necessary is

whether there exists any material which is relevant for the purpose for

which the externment order is to be passed and whether the authority

has applied his mind to such material or not. This has been amply seen

in the present case and therefore, we find that there is no substance in

the argument that the crimes registered against the petitioner in

October 2017 do not have any reasonable link with the externment

order and the object that he seeks to achieve in the present case.

6. No doubt, in the first show cause notice there is no

mention whatsoever about existence of the statements of the

confidential witnesses but, such mention is found in the final show

cause notice dated 20.04.2018. This show cause notice makes a

reference to the material allegations contained in the confidential

witnesses in general terms. These material allegations are to the effect

Judgment 5 Cri.W.P.490.2018.odt

that the confidential witnesses are not coming forward to depose

against the petitioner openly out of fear for the petitioner. In our

opinion, this material could be considered to be in the nature of the

gist which is nothing but summary of the important allegations made

against the petitioner and therefore, it satisfies the criteria laid down in

this regard in the case of Sumit S/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe and Ors.

(supra) decided by the Full Bench of this Court. In the case of Rahul

Alias Pintu Alias Kalu (supra), this Court had found that the gist of the

material allegations was not mentioned in the show cause notice. But,

this finding is only on the facts of that case and therefore, it renders no

assistance to the case of the petitioner here. In the result, we find no

infirmity with or any illegality in the impugned order. The Writ Petition

stands dismissed.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks

continuation of the interim stay granted by this Court on 22.05.2018

for a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to discharge all his

family responsibility as mentioned in paragraph - 1 in the petition

which prayer has been opposed by the learned A.P.P. Considering the

family responsibility of the petitioner, we extend the interim stay for a

further period of two weeks from the date of the order after which, the

Judgment 6 Cri.W.P.490.2018.odt

externment order shall be complied with for the period for which it is

directed to be complied with.

            (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)         (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)




 Kirtak