Ranjit Kumar Veeran vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7579 Bom

V.S. Sherla
                                                   1/8                        WP.356.2021 - J..doc




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.356 OF 2021

              Ranjit Kumar Veeran of Mumbai
              Indian Inhabitant aged 28 years,
              Residing at Unit 7, Aarey
              Milk Colony, Goregaon (E),
              Mumbai- 400 065.                              ... PETITIONER

                    Versus

              1.    Deputy Commissioner of Police
                    Zone-XII, Shailendra Nagar,
                    Dahisar (E), Mumbai.

              2.    State of Maharashtra                    ...RESPONDENTS


              Mr.S.B. Talekar a/w Ms.Madhvi Ayyappan i/by. Mr.Samir Vaidya for
              Petitioner

              Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP, for State


                                                   CORAM:   S. S. SHINDE &
                                                            MANISH PITALE, JJ.

                          JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON:            MAY 4, 2021.
                       JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON:             JUNE 8, 2021


              JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

              VSS





 V.S. Sherla
                                                   2/8                           WP.356.2021 - J..doc

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition, as

mentioned in the petition, are as under:-

The petitioner herein was a witness in C.R. No. 43 of 2017

wherein his business partner was murdered by a group of one Dorai

within the vicinity of Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. On

30.06.2017, the Petitioner addressed letter to the Senior Police

Inspector, Aarey Police Station and D.C.P., Zone XII seeking police

protection for himself and his family in view of murder of his business

partner. In between 19.10.2017 and 8.7.2019, the Petitioner was

arraigned as accused in the case despite the Aarey Police Station and

its officers being aware that the Petitioner was not present at the spot

of incident. However, deliberately at the instance of one A.P.I. Sunil

Lokhande, the petitioner's name was added in the cases. On

16.10.2018, the petitioner and his brothers were assaulted and were

hospitalized for severe injuries and F.I.R. under section 307 of Indian

Penal Code was registered at the instance of the Petitioner against

Dorai and few others whereas a cross complaint was registered

against the petitioner by Aarey Police Station. On 8.07.2019, cross

First Information Reports were registered against the petitioner and

his associates and also against Shiva Shetty and his associates being

C.R. Nos.129 of 2019 and 130 of 2019. On 4.10.2019, the petitioner

VSS

V.S. Sherla 3/8 WP.356.2021 - J..doc

was granted bail by this Court. On 14.07.2020, the Petitioner was

externed from Mumbai city for two years. On 27.07.2020, the

Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court seeking quashing of

externment order. On 22.08.2020, this Court directed the petitioner to

approach the appellate authority. In the month of September, 2020,

the petitioner filed an externment appeal bearing Externment Appeal

No.48 of 2020. On 05.11.2020, the appellate authority heard the

appeal and closed the same for orders. The appellate authority by an

order dated 12.01.2021, confirmed the externment order thereby

externing the petitioner for two years, which severely hampered the

petitioner's right to carry on legitimate business and freedom of

movement. Hence, this petition.

3. Mr.Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner,

submitted that the impugned externment order is excessive inasmuch

as petitioner's alleged activities are stated to be in Aarey Colony,

Goregaon, Mumbai. However, the petitioner has been externed from

Mumbai City, Mumbai suburban and Thane Districts. It is submitted

that there is no live link between the prejudicial activities and the

externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the

respondent-authority; the subjective satisfaction has not been arrived

at before passing the externment order; the material which was

VSS

V.S. Sherla 4/8 WP.356.2021 - J..doc

considered while passing the first externment order could not have

been considered while passing the second externment order. In

support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon

the following judgments:

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for

the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments :-

1] Pappu v/s The State of Maharashtra, (2017 Cri LJ 1586);

2] Ganesh Nilkanth Patil v/s Dy. Commissioner of Police, (Cri. WP No.2841 of 2012);

3] Akash Ramesh Dawande v/s State of Maharashtra, (2020 SCC Online Bom 1268);

4] Masiullha Abdul Mohid Idrisi v/s The Assistant Commissioner of Police, (Cri.WP No.2444 of 2013);

5] Ayub Abdul Sattar Shaikh v/s. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Mumbai and others, (2013 SCC Online Bom. 1179);

6] Ganesh Murgesh Bajantri v/s State of Maharashtra, (2020 SCC Online Bom 1460);

7] Praful Bhausaheb Yadav v/s Shri K. K. Pathak, (2013 SCC OnLine Bom. 188);

8] Vinay @ Mukka Chawaria v/s Divisional Commissioner, (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9884);

9] Rajesh s/o Jiwan Jangle v/s State of Maharashtra, (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9254);

10] Zahoor Ismail Fakie v/s State of Maharashtra, (2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1109);

VSS

V.S. Sherla 5/8 WP.356.2021 - J..doc

11] Santoshkumar Shri Rampratap Singh v/s State of Maharashtra, (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 11617);

12] Mohamad Yusuf Mohmad Ibrahim Momin v/s Deputy Commissioner, (2020 SCC OnLine Bom 4053);

13] Sanjay Pandurang Nagpure v/s Stae of Maharashtra, (2007(5) Mh. L.J. 436);

14] Shakeela v/s The State, (2014 SCC OnLine Del 469)

15] Umar Mohamed Malbari v/s K. P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and anr. (1988 Mh LJ 1034);

16] Ravi s/o Ramdas Aher v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6586).

4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the Respondent -

State relying upon the reasons assigned in the impugned order

submitted that the alleged activities of the petitioner are causing

danger to the lives of the people residing in the vicinity of Aarey

colony. The reasons given in the impugned order are self explanatory

and based upon documents and evidence. Therefore, the learned

APP submitted that the petition may be rejected.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also

the learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State and with their

able assistance, we have carefully perused the pleadings and the

grounds taken in the petition, the annexures thereto and the reasons

VSS

V.S. Sherla 6/8 WP.356.2021 - J..doc

assigned by the respondent - authorities while passing the impugned

externment order. It appears that the following four offences were

registered against the petitioner:

Sr.No. Police Station C.R. Nos. Current Status

1. Aarey 33/13 - sections 324, Subjudice 323, 34 of IPC 149/PW/13

2. Chunabhatti 160/15 - sections 363, Subjudice 364A of IPC Sessions Case No.184/13

3. Aarey 137/2017 - sections Under Investigation 324, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 of IPC

4. Aarey 141/2017 - sections Under Investigation 353 of IPC read with sections 110, 112, 117 of MCOCA

It appears that the above mentioned offences are registered in

the year 2013, 2015 and 2017 and the externment proceedings are

initiated in the year 2020. We have carefully perused the externment

order passed on 14.7.2020 and find that there is no discussion

showing a nexus between the said offences and externment

proceedings. Secondly, in the impugned order, there is no elaborate

discussion that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose

against the petitioner due to fear to their person and property. Thirdly,

VSS

V.S. Sherla 7/8 WP.356.2021 - J..doc

the petitioner has been externed from the revenue boundaries of

Mumbai city, Mumbai suburban and Thane districts. No doubt, the

authority can extern the externee from the adjoining districts, however,

the authority has to assign reasons as to why the externment from the

adjoining districts is warranted though the offences are registered only

in the police station in respect of alleged activities in Aarey colony. In

the impugned order, there is no such discussion. It appears that the

first in-camera statement was recorded on 7.1.2020 and the second

in-camera statement was recorded on 9.1.2020. However, the

externment order was passed on 14.7.2020. There is a gap of about 6

months in between and, therefore, the live link between the prejudicial

activities and the ultimate order of externment has been snapped.

6. There is no specific discussion in the impugned order that due to

the alleged activities and fear of the petitioner, the witnesses are not

willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the

petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the

safety of their person and property.

7. In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the

impugned order of externment cannot legally sustain and therefore,

the said order dated 12.1.2020 confirming the externment order

VSS

V.S. Sherla 8/8 WP.356.2021 - J..doc

dated 14.7.2020 passed by Respondent No.1 is quashed and set

aside.

8. Rule is made absolute and Writ Petition is disposed off

accordingly.

                    (MANISH PITALE, J.)                        (S.S. SHINDE, J.)




              VSS