Jeetendra Ashok Bhosale vs The Divisional Commissioner And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7584 Bom

Sherla V.


                                                                            WP.1683.2021-J.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1683 OF 2021

            Shri Jeetendra Ashok Bhosale
            36 years, Occ.: Business
            r/o. Bungalow No.3, Survey No.230
                                                                             ... Petitioner
            Near Ganga Nebula Society, Vimanagar
            Pune - 411 014

                       Vs
            1) The Divisional Commissioner
            Council Hall, Pune

            2) The Commissioner of Police
            officer of C.P., Sadhu Vaswani Road, Pune

            3) Deputy Commissioner of Police
            Zone - IV, Pune City, 1st floor,
                                                                       ... Respondents
            Gunjan Theater Chowk,
            Yerwada Zonal Office, Pune

            4) Asstt. Commissioner of Police
            Yerwada Division, Yerwada, Pune

            5) The State of Maharashtra




            Mr.D.P. Adsule for the Petitioner

            Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent - State


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

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


                                             Page 1 of 9



              ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 22:46:56 :::
                                                                  WP.1683.2021-J.doc




JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable

forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive prayer

clauses:

"(c) That the Impugned Order dated 24/02/2021 passed by Respondent No.1 in Externment/Appeal/SR/EA_5/2021 be quashed and set aside.

(d) That the Impugned Order of Externment dated 06/01/2021, bearing no.03/2021, passed by the Res. No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune City, Pune be quashed and set aside."

3. The brief facts leaving to the filing of this petition are as

under:

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents issued

externment order on the basis of the same material which was

considered as the basis to initiate the externment proceedings

earlier which were subsequently dropped. On 28.5.2019, a show-

cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is the case of the

petitioner that the earlier show-cause notice was issued to the

WP.1683.2021-J.doc

petitioner vide an externment order as to why he should not be

externed from the area which was mentioned in the notice.

Pursuant to the said notice, the proceedings were initiated,

however, on 24.1.2020, the said proceedings were dropped.

Again on 3.9.2020, another notice was issued by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, on 2.10.2020, on the basis of

the report received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the

Deputy Commissioner of Police issued notice to the petitioner.

After hearing the parties, on 6.4.2021, the impugned externment

order was issued by respondent No.3 thereby externing the

petitioner for two years from the area mentioned in the notice and

the impugned order.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2021, the petitioner

filed an appeal under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act

alongwith stay application. The appellate authority dismissed the

appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the impugned order of externment is excessive. Secondly,

there is no live link between the alleged offences registered

against the petitioner and initiation of the externment proceedings.

WP.1683.2021-J.doc

Thirdly, the earlier externment proceedings, on the same material,

were dropped by the respondent - authorities and, therefore, there

was no reason to initiate the proceedings on the basis of the same

material. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner prayed that the petition may be allowed. In support of

the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgements:

1] Sachin Bhaskar Badgujar v/s State of Mah. (Cri. WP No.41 of 2018);

2] Subhash Ganu Bhoir v/s K. P. Raghuwanshi & ors, (1987(1) Bom. C. R. 425);

3] Ravi s/o Raju Bhalerao v/s State of Mah. (2017 All MR (Cri.) 4646);

4] Sadashiv P Gondhalkar v/s State of Mah. (Cri. WP No.1032 of 2017);

5] Kailas D. Kolpe v/s. Div. Commissioner, Nashik, (2017 All MR (Cri.) 4517);

6] Narayan M. Khilani v/s State of Mah. (1986 (1) Bom. C.R. 122);

7] Anna Bhimrao Dhavale v/s State of Maharashtra and others; (2016 DGLS (Bom) 1196);

8] Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi v/s The Dy. Commissioner of Police & ors. (2016 All MR (Cri) 3056);

9] Aslam /o Shabbir Shaikhy v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. (2017 All MR (Cri) 3736);

WP.1683.2021-J.doc

10] Zumbar s/o Goroba Kadam vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, (2017 All MR (Cri) 843);

11] Bilal Gulam Rasul Patel v/s Div. Magistrate & others, (Cri. WP No.3950 of 2013)

6. Ms.Pai, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent -

State, relying upon the reasons recorded in the impugned order of

externment and also by the appellate authority, submitted that the

petition is devoid of any merit and the same may be dismissed.

7. We have given a careful consideration to the rival

submissions of the parties. With the able assistance of the

learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP

appearing for the Respondent - State, we have carefully perused

the pleadings and the grounds taken in the petition, the annexures

thereto and the reasons assigned by the respondent - authorities

while passing the impugned externment order and while

dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It appears that the

following offences were registered against the petitioner:

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

1. Vimantal 243/2014 324, 323, 504, Subjudice 427, 34 of IPC

WP.1683.2021-J.doc

2. Vimantal 34/2016 (NC) 504, 5046(1) of -

IPC

3. Vimantal 308/2018 387 of IPC Subjudice

4. Vimantal 329/2018 387, 452, 504, Subjudice 323, 506, 116, 34 of IPC

Thereafter, the following non-cognisable offences were registered:

            Sr.No.     Police Station     C.R. No.                 Sections
              1.         Yerwada        1520/2020 NC               500 IPC
              2.         Yerwada        1911/2020 NC               500 IPC

8. We have carefully perused the impugned order passed by

the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Pune City, Pune and

find that there is no discussion about live link between the

registration of those offences and initiation of the externment

proceedings against the petitioner. In the aforesaid four offences,

the first offence was registered in the year 2014 and the last i.e.,

the fourth offence was registered in the year 2018. The impugned

order of externment was passed in the year 2021. In the absence

of discussion showing that there is a live link between the

externment proceedings initiated by the respondent-authority and

registration of the said offences, the impugned order cannot legally

be sustained on the basis of registration of the said offences. The

WP.1683.2021-J.doc

aforesaid two Non-Cognisable offences are also registered in the

year 2020.

9. There is no denial to the assertion of the petitioner that on

the same material, the earlier externment proceedings were

initiated in the year 2019 by issuing show-cause notice on

28.5.2019 and ultimately, those proceedings were dropped.

10. Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, we find that there is no

discussion that due to the fear of the petitioner, 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. The mandate of section 56 (1)

(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act can be fulfilled only by

way of assigning reasons that due to the alleged activities of the

externee, the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give

evidence in public against the externee by reason of apprehension

on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. In

absence of such discussion or reasons in the impugned order, the

order of externment cannot legally sustain.

WP.1683.2021-J.doc

11. We have carefully perused the externment order and find

that there is a casual reference to the statements of alleged

witnesses A and B, however, neither any date nor any specific

instance has been mentioned in the impugned order. There is only

a general discussion. It appears that the petitioner has been

externed from Pimpri Chinchwad Commissionerate area, Pune city

and Pune district. No doubt, the respondent - authority has

jurisdiction to extern the proposed externee from the concerned

district and adjoining districts, however, it is necessary to give

reasons for such externment from the adjoining Talukas or

Districts, where there is no offence registered against the

proposed externee. However, in the impugned order, there is no

discussion to that effect.

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

after a careful perusal of the order passed by the appellate

authority, we have noticed that the appellate authority has

mechanically endorsed the findings recorded by the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Pune City. In that view of the

matter, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of

externment dated 6.1.2021 bearing No.03/2021, passed by the

WP.1683.2021-J.doc

Respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune

City, Pune, confirmed in Appeal by order dated 24/02/2021 passed

by Respondent No.1 in Externment/Appeal/SR/EA_5/2021 are

quashed and set aside.

13. Rule is made absolute and the Writ Petition stands disposed

off accordingly.

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