Bombay High Court
Sayyad Nazim Sayyad Salar vs Divisional Commissioner ... on 10 March, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
criwp190.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 190/2021
PETITIONER : Sayyad Nazim Sayyad Salar,
aged about 33 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Rahul Nagar, Cichhu Tekadi,
Tah. and District Amravati.
At present Baba Layout, Tayde Nagar,
Yavatmal, District - Yavatmal
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati,
Tah. and District Amravati.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-I, Amravati, Tah. and Dist. Amravati.
3. Assistant Police Commissioner, Frezarpura
Zone, Amravati, Tah. and District -
Amravati.
4. Police Station Officer, Police Station
Frezarpura, Amravati, Tah. and District
Amravati.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.Siddartha, Advocate h/f Shri P.V.Navlani, Advocate for
petitioner
Mr. A.S.Fulzele, Addl P.P for respondent nos.1 to 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 10/03/2021.
criwp190.21.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Fulzele, learned Additional P.P. who appears by waiving notice for
the respondents.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2] By the impugned orders, the petitioner has been
externed from Amravati District for a period of one year. The first
impugned order has been passed on 11.09.2020 and the second
which is an order by the appellate authority is passed on 07.12.2020.
These orders are passed against the the petitioner under Section
56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
3] According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these
orders are arbitrary, as they fail to consider the basic fact which
affects this case. This fact is of absence of any live link between the
alleged crime and prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the
purpose sought to be achieved by passing an externment order.
criwp190.21.odt
4] Shri Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and there are
witnesses who are stating that they feel afraid of the petitioner
because of which the witnesses do not come forward to give any
evidence against the petitioner.
5] The impugned orders show that they take into
consideration five criminal cases registered against the petitioner and
this consideration appears to be lying at the core of satisfaction that
has been reached in this case by the respondents. These five cases
have been registered at Police Station Frezarpur during the period
from 12.12.2013 and 13.01.2020. The first crime came to be
registered against the petitioner on 12.12.2013, the second on
15.11.2014, third on 11.05.2017, forth on 07.05.2018 and fifth on
13.01.2020. So all the offences which were registered in the year
2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018 are certainly stale. The last of the
offences registered in January, 2020, with a gap of around 8 months
between registration of this crime and passing of the impugned order,
is also of the same kind and does not have any live link with the
criwp190.21.odt
object sought to be achieved by externing the petitioner. It is well
settled that in order that a criminal activity of a proposed externee is
considered as prejudicial to the public interest, it must have a
recurring character or such a character as would create an impression
in the mind of the public that if no preventive action is taken, the
person is likely to go on indulging in similar or even severe kind of
criminal activities. But, with the passage of time, if nothing happens,
the apprehension so generated by the earlier criminal activity
decimated, loosing its significance. This is what has happened in the
present case and therefore, on this ground alone, we are of the view
that the impugned orders are bad in law and deserve to be quashed
and set aside.
6] If the criminal activity which is considered against the
person is not found to be relevant for forming an impression
regarding creation of fear or terror in the mind of public, the other
consideration of the witnesses not coming forward out of fear to
depose against such person would not arise.
criwp190.21.odt
7] Viewed in this way, we find that the impugned orders
which ignored the fundamental facts affecting the whole case cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law.
8] The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated
11.09.2020 and 07.12.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
