Raja Maniram Kuntalwar vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7991 Bom

                                1



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

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 418/2022

        Raja Maniram Kuntalwar,
        aged 28 years, Occ. Property Dealer,
        R/o. Premnagar, Zenda Chowk, near
        Shaktidham Mandir, Nagpur - 440 002.


                                                ... PETITIONER


                             VERSUS

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

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



                                               ... RESPONDENTS

_____________________________________________________________
       Mr. N. R. Kukwas, Advocate for petitoiner.
       Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, APP for respondent/State.
______________________________________________________________

                 CORAM                   : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                 DATE OF JUDGMENT        : 18.08.2022.




ORAL JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3. The petitioner has challenged exterment order dated

11.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone No. 3

Nagpur externing the petitioner from the Nagpur District for the period

of one year. The order is passed in terms of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the

Maharashtra Police Act.

4. The impugned action has been challenged on the ground

that the Authority has considered the irrelevant material, absence of

live-link, details of in-camera statements are not provided and the

petitioner has followed the mandate of the order till date. On the

other, the learned Additional Public Public Prosecutor resisted the

petition by contending that the impugned order reflects due application

of mind. The Authorities have supplied necessary particulars of in-

camera statements and there exist a live-link.

5. The externment order discloses that total seven offences

have been registered against the petitioner. True, the offencse at Serial

Nos. 1, 2 and 5 cannot be considered being not falling under Chapter

XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, however still there are

some more offences which have weighed to the Authority for passing

the externment order. The Offence at Serial No. 3 which falls under

Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code is dated 04.09.2020, the offence

at Serial No. 4 causing grievous hurt is dated 19.10.2020 and offence at

Serial No. 6 is of criminal trespass coupled with criminal intimidation is

dated 06.08.2021. Thus, it appears that in proximity within span of

one year, three offences which could be considered for externment have

been committed and the show cause notice is issued within six months

from the last crime. Thus, it could not be said that there is absence of

live-link, but it shows a continuance activities of repeating similar

crime.

6. The show cause notice bears a specific reference regarding

two in-camera statements specifying that the witnesses have

particularly stated that the petitioner on the point of knife has snatched

cash amount i.e. a case of robbery. The Authorities have verified the

worth of in-camera statements by visiting said area. The impugned

order shows due application of mind. The Authorities have recorded

subjective satisfaction that due to continuance activities, the witnesses

are not coming forward and there is likelihood of breach of public

peace. Pertinent to note that though the statute permits externment for

maximum period of two years, the Authority has externed the

petitioner for one year for valid reason which also shows that there is

due application of mind.

7. Having regard to above facts, no interference is called.

Hence, petition stands dismissed.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Gohane

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE GOHANE Date:

2022.08.19 15:56:19 +0530