Rohit Manoj Verma vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15217 Bom

                                              1                                43-wp-646-21j.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2021

  Rohit Manoj Verma,
  Aged 28 years, Occ. Property Dealer,
  R/o. House No. 682, Nayapura,
  Premnagar, Zenda Chowk,
  Nagpur 440002                                                          . . . PETITIONER

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. The State of Maharashtra through
     its Secretary, Home Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai.

  2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
     Zone No. 3, Nagpur.                                             . . . RESPONDENTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Mir Rizwan Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri V. A. Thakre, A.P.P. for respondents/State.


                  CORAM:- M. S. SONAK AND
                          PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATED:- 25.10.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.):-

1. Heard Shri Mir Rizwan Ali, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Shri V. A. Thakre learned A.P.P. for State.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request

of and consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2 43-wp-646-21j.odt

3. The challenge in this petition is to the externment order

no. 4/2021, dated 15.02.2021 made by respondent no. 2 herein

invoking the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra

Police Act, 1951 (the said Act).

4. The record indicates that against the impugned order, the

petitioner instituted an appeal but, the appeal came to be rejected by

the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2021.

5. The impugned order refers to the following 7 cases

registered against the petitioner and then proceeds to state that on

account of these 7 cases, the Externing Authority is satisfied that there

are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is engaged in

the commission of offenses involving force or violence or offenses

under Chapter 12, 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. The

externment order also contains a statement that witnesses are not

willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the

petitioner for the reason or apprehension on their part for the safety of

their person or property.

Sr. Police Station Crime No./Section Date Court Case No. Result No.

  1.   Shantinagar      125/2017, Sections      04.10.2017        4039/2017, Dtd. Subjudice
                        452, 323, 294, 506B, 34                   06.11.2017
                        of IPC
  2.   Shantinagar      3035/2018, Sections        23.04.2018     15847/2018,          Subjudice
                        160 of IPC                                Dtd. 10.07.2018
  3.   Shantinagar      111/2019, Sections 12      22.03.2019     20210/2019,          Subjudice
                        of Gambling Act                           Dtd. 02.08.2019





                                                3                             43-wp-646-21j.odt

  4.   Shantinagar      324/2019, Section 12       31.08.2019   26055/2019,         Subjudice
                        of Gambling Act                         Dtd. 16.10.2019
  5.   Shantinagar      401/2019, Section        19.10.2019     4056/2020, Dtd. Subjudice
                        65(e) of Prohibition Act                25.02.2020
  6.   Shantinagar      406/2019, Sections         27.10.2019   733/2020, Dtd.      Subjudice
                        324, 323, 34 of IPC                     28.02.2020
  7.   Shantinagar      400/2020, Sections         03.09.2020           --          Under
                        294, 506, 323, 427, 34                                      Investigatio
                        of IPC                                                      n

6. From the instances referred to above, it is apparent that

instance nos. 3 to 5 concern offenses under Prohibition Act and

Gambling Act. There are no allegations that such offenses involved

any force or violence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, prima

facie, such offenses ought not to have been taken into account for

reaching substantive satisfaction necessary to issue impugned

externment order. Besides, even these are the instances relating to the

year 2019, while the impugned order has been made only on

15.02.2021. The nexus or the live link between these instances and the

impugned order has not been satisfactorily explained either in the

impugned externment order or in the affidavit filed in defense of the

same.

7. Similarly, we find that the first two instances relate to the

cases registered against the petitioner on 04.10.2017 and 23.04.2018.

Again, there is nothing in the impugned externment order or in the

affidavit filed in defense of the same to establish any live link between

these instances and the substantive satisfaction reached for making the

4 43-wp-646-21j.odt

impugned externment order. Based upon such stale instances, the

Externing Authority could not have believed that there are reasonable

grounds as contemplated by Section 56(1)(b) of the said Act.

8. The last 2 instances no doubt relate to the offenses under

the requisite Chapter of the Indian Penal Code. However, one of these

cases came to be registered on 27.10.2019, alleging that the petitioner

has committed offenses under Sections 323, 324 of the Indian Penal

Code. Again, we feel that even this instance does not provide a live

link for reaching the requisite subjective satisfaction for making the

impugned externment order.

9. The last instance is Case No. 400/2020, alleging inter alia

commission of an offense under Sections 294, 506, 323, and 427 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This is an instance dated

03.09.2020. Based on this solitary instance, we feel that the Externing

Authority could not have entertained the reasonable grounds for

invoking the provisions of Section 56(1)(b) or for that matter 56(1)(a)

of the said Act.

10. There is a vague reference to confidential statements of

some witnesses. However, based upon such a vague statement, the

Externing Authority could not have concluded that the witnesses are

not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner because of

5 43-wp-646-21j.odt

apprehension on their part regards the safety of their person or

property. This is also a case where it is difficult to discern the impact

of relevant material if at all, and the irrelevant material taken into

account by the Externing Authority. At least, in this case, the

severability is rendered quite difficult. Neither the impugned order nor

the affidavit filed in defense of the same makes any reference to this

aspect.

11. Upon cumulative consideration of the material on record

as also the return filed in defense of the impugned externment order,

we are satisfied that the impugned externment order warrants

interference in the facts of the present case.

12. Accordingly, the impugned externment order is hereby set

aside and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the

petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

                      (PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.)                (M. S. SONAK, J.)




RR Jaiswal