Sheikh Imran @ Golu S/O Sheikh ... vs Divisional Commissioner ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7246 Bom

                                    1



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

              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 291/2022

          Shiekh Imran @ Golu S/o Sheikh Kadar,
          Aged 26 years, Occ. Labour, R/o.
          Azadnagar, Amravati City, Amravati.

                                                    ... PETITIONER
                                                         (Externee)

                                  VERSUS

    1.    Divisional Commissioner,
          Amravati Division, Amravati.

    2.    Deputy Commissioner of Police,
          Zone-1, Amravati City, Amravati.

    3.    Assistant Commissioner of Police,
          Gadgenagar Division, Amravati
          City, Amravati.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
       Mr. Laxmikant B. Thawkar, Advocate for petitioner.
       Mr. S. M. Ukey, A.P.P. for non-applicant No.1 to 3.
______________________________________________________________

                   CORAM                      : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                   DATE OF JUDGMENT           : 27.07.2022.


ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of both the parties.

2. The petitioner has been externed from the Amravati District

for the period of two years vide order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the

Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-1, Amravati City, Amravati in

terms of Sections 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act ('Act'). The

petitioner has filed statutory appeal against externment order, in which

the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 31.03.2022 has brought

down the period of externment from two years to one year only.

3. The challenge is on the ground that the action of

externment is based on stale cases. There is no live-link, no in-camera

statements were recorded and the offences are of individual nature. To

substantiate these grounds, the petitioner relied on the decision of the

Supreme Court in case of Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & ors., 2022 ALL MR (Cri) 761 (S.C.) . The State opposed

the petition by filing reply-affidavit. All contentions raised by the

petitioner are denied. Additionally, it is submitted that during the

exterment period, the petitioner was in the city by virtue of interim

order of this Court, but during that time, he had committed a

congnizable offence.

4. The impugned order bears list of total nine offences which

are falling under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal code and mostly

relates to the use of dangerous weapon while committing the offence.

First crimes are during the period from 2008 to 2018. However, the

crime at serial No. 6 is dated 12.05.2020, crime at serial No. 7 is dated

14.11.2021, crime at serial No. 8 is dated 14.11.2021 and crime at

serial No. 9 is dated 14.04.2021, whilst the impugned action is initiated

in the month of January 2022. It reveals that most of the offences were

committed by dangerous weapon, some offences are of criminal

intimidation and some offences are of attempting to commit murder.

Even if the first five offences are excluded, still it reveals that on

frequent intervals, the petitioner indulged into committing similar

offences of grave nature. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action is

either based on stale crime or there is no live-link.

5. The impugned action is initiated under Section 56(1)(a)(b)

of the Act. The authorities are empowered to initiate the action under

Clause (a) to Section 56 of the Act provided that the movements or acts

of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm

to person or property. No doubt, for initiating the action under Clause

(b) to Section 56 of the Act recording of in-camera statement is

necessary, however that is not the situation when the action is under

Clause (a) to Section 56(1) of the Act. Apart from that, the very

purport of the action under Section 56 of the Act is to remove the

person from their area of working to protect the innocence person of

the society.

6. The record indicates that the petitioner is habituated in

freely using arms and committing similar type of bodily offences. The

learned Additional Public prosecutor has produced a copy of First

Information Report dated 16.07.2022 registered against the petitioner

for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Pertinent to note that the petitioner has applied to this Court, on which

the interim stay was granted to the externment order on 10.05.2022.

Thus, while the petitioner was in the city under the shadow of interim

order, he has committed an offence of attempt to murder which is

registered on 16.07.2022. The gist of said information indicates that

the petitioner has assaulted the then informant by means of knife at his

stomach. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner itself debars him from

claiming any relief. In view of that, there is no reason to entertain this

petition, hence petition stands dismissed and Rule is discharged.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Gohane Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE GOHANE Date:

2022.07.29 18:03:24 +0530