Bombay High Court
Bhikan Deelip Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 March, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
1 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1214 OF 2021
Bhushan s/o Anil Thakre,
Age : 29 years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Village Fagne, Tal. & Dist.: Dhule .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Police Dhule
3. Sub Divisional Police Offcer,
Dhule Rural, Sakri
4. The Police Inspector,
Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1215 OF 2021
Bhikan s/o Deelip Jadhav,
Age : Major, Occu.: Labour,
R/o.: Village Fagne, Tal. & Dist.: Dhule .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Police Dhule
3. Sub Divisional Police Offcer,
Dhule Rural, Sakri
4. The Police Inspector,
Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2022 11:31:06 :::
2 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1216 OF 2021
Lakhan s/o Devidas Sonar,
Age : Major, Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o.: Village Fagne, Tal. & Dist.: Dhule .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Police Dhule
3. Sub Divisional Police Offcer,
Dhule Rural, Sakri
4. The Police Inspector,
Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1241 OF 2021
1. Kunal s/o Raju Thorat,
Age : 28 years, Occu.: Driver,
R/o.: Village Fagne, Tal. & Dist.: Dhule
2. Sanjay s/o Shivaji Patil,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Driver,
R/o.: Village Fagne, Tal. & Dist.: Dhule
3. Banti @ Nilesh s/o Nandkishor Patil,
Age ; 28 years Occu.: Centering work,
R/o.: Village Fagne, Tal. & Dist.: Dhule ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Police Dhule
3. Sub Divisional Police Offcer,
Dhule Rural, Sakri
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2022 11:31:06 :::
3 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
4. The Police Inspector,
Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule. ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. R. V. Dasalkar
....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 09/02/2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 09/03/2022
....
JUDGMENT : (Per : Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
fnally at admission stage.
2. All these petitions have been fled by the concerned petitioners
to whom respondent no.3 in all the petitions had issued notice
under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act in respect of
proposal under Section 55 of the said Act. On perusal of the said
notice dated 19/08/2020 it appears that the same is common for all
the petitioners in the present writ petitions. Further the order in
respect of these notices has also been passed by present respondent
no.2 on 04/11/2020 in common for all the petitioners. Though the
Divisional Commissioner, Nashik entertained separate appeals
mentioned in these petitions under provisions of Section 60 of the
4 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
Maharashtra Police Act against the order dated 04/11/2020 passed
by respondent no.2, but since the notice dated 19/08/2020 and frst
order dated 04/11/2020 appear to be common for all the petitions,
we have decided to dispose of all these petitions by common
judgment.
3. Background facts are as follows :
Under notice dated 19/08/2020 respondent no.3 has proposed
two years externment of the petitioners from the limits of Dhule,
Jalgaon and Nashik districts as the presence of the petitioners in the
aforesaid limits was found dangerous to public at large and law and
order in the respective districts. So far as criminal record of all
these petitioners is concerned, the crimes registered against all the
aforesaid petitioners are mentioned in the said notice. On receiving
the notice, the petitioners except the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
1214 of 2021 i.e. Bhushan Anil Thakre i.e. a gang leader, appeared
before respondent no.2 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Dhule and
submitted their statements. However, the petitioner Bhushan Anil
Thakre despite service of notice through his father as well as
brother, did not appear. Thereafter, respondent no.2 by considering
the entire material and the statements of the petitioners, came to
the conclusion that the petitioners being members of a gang, have
5 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
indulged into various criminal activities relating to the offence
involving forming of an unlawful assembly, abusing, use of weapon
for attempt to commit murder, spreading of communal
dissatisfaction, sexual harassment of children, etc. Ultimately,
respondent no.2 has externed all the aforesaid petitioners from
District Dhule, Talukas Amalner, Parola and Chalisgaon of Jalgaon
District and Malegaon Taluka of Nashik District for a period of two
years on service of the order dated 04/11/2020.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners have fled
their respective appeals under Section 60 of Maharashtra Police Act
before Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. However, the Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik under orders dated 25/06/2021 in the
Externment Appeal Nos.104 of 2020, 103 of 2020, 105 of 2020 and
106 of 2020 after considering submissions of the petitioners,
dismissed the appeals and confrmed the order dated 04/11/2020
passed by respondent no.2. Hence, the petitioners have fled these
petitions challenging both the orders passed by respondent no.2 and
the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik dated 04/11/2020 and
25/06/2021 respectively.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged
gang leader Bhushan Anil Thakre in Writ Petition No. 1214 of 2021
6 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
was not even served with the notice dated 19/08/2020 and still he
has been externed without being given an opportunity of hearing. It
is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
all these petitioners cannot be said to be habitual offenders as there
are no conviction recorded against them in any case. He further
submits that both the authorities have considered the crimes
registered against the petitioners in the year 2016 for their
externment. According to him, the pendency of cases against the
present petitioners cannot be said to be criminal activities in a group
of persons referred as a gang and therefore, power under Section 55
of the Act cannot be exercised against them. As such, he prayed for
setting aside the orders dated 04/11/2020 and 25/06/2021 passed
by respondent no.2 and Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners in addition to his
submissions at bar also relied on the judgment of this court in the
case of Lalookhan Haideralikhan vs. M. M. Kamble, Special
Executive Magistrate, Byculla Division, Bombay and others, 1996
Cri.L.J. 801.
6. On the contrary, the learned APP strongly opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and pointed out that
there are serious crimes against the present petitioners and on
7 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
perusal of respective crimes against the petitioner as mentioned in
the notice dated 19/08/2020 it is evident that some of those crimes
have been committed by the present petitioners being members of
one and same gang. He further submits that all the petitioners are
harden criminals and also used dangerous weapons. There is fear in
the mind of public at large due to criminal activities of the
petitioners. Moreover, there are also in-camera statements of the
persons to whom the aforesaid petitioners have threatened. With
these submissions the learned APP supported the impugned orders.
7. It is important to note that under both the impugned orders,
the present petitioners have been externed from limits of entire
Dhule District, Talukas Amalner, Parola and Chalisgaon of Jalgaon
District and Malegaon Taluka of Nashik District by considering their
criminal activities in view of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police
Act. We would like to reproduce the said Section 55, which reads as
thus :
"55. Dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons :
Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay
and in other areas in which a Commissioner is
appointed under Section 7 to the Commissioner and
in a district to the District magistrate, the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate or the (Superintendent)( * * *)
empowered by the State Government in that behalf,
8 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
that the movement or encampment of any gang or
body of persons in the area in his charge is causing
or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or
reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are
entertained by such gang or body or by members
thereof, such offcer may, by notifcation addressed to
the persons appearing to be the leaders or chief men
of such gang or body and published by beat of drum
or otherwise as such offcer thinks ft, direct the
members of such gang or body so to conduct
themselves as shall seem necessary in order to
prevent violence and alarm or disperse and each of
them to remove himself outside the area within the
local limits of his jurisdiction (or such area and any
district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous
thereto) within such time as such offcer shall
prescribe, and not to enter to area (for the areas and
such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case
may be) or return to the place from which each of
them was directed to remove himself".
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an objection
that all these petitioners cannot be said to be habitual offenders as
there is no conviction recorded against them in any case mentioned
in notice under Section 59 dated 19/08/2020. For that purpose, he
also relied upon the case of Lalookhan Haideralikhan (supra).
9 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
9. On careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that
this court in the said case held that the show cause notice under
Section 111 of Cr.P.C. being wholly illegal and unsustainable since
mere registration of cases about the alleged offences cannot be a
proof of fact that the person is a habitual offender. It is further held
that the said observation in respect of the habitual offender will only
be available after a person is found guilty of the charges levelled
against him. However, the aforesaid observation of this court has
mainly come in respect of the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner in that case under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and not under
Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act or Bombay Police Act. On
careful reading of Section of 55 as mentioned above, it is evident
that the scope and purview of Section 55 of Maharashtra Police Act
is altogether different than the scope of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. As per
Section 55 of the said Act dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons is
considered specially if it is found that the movement or encampment
of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or
is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that
unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by
members there, then that gang or body of persons can be removed
outside the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction wherein
such movement occurs. Nothing is mentioned in this section that
10 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
the members of such gang or the persons of the said body need to be
convicted for the offences alleged against them. Therefore, the
aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is not at all helpful in the instant case.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also raised an objection
that out of the petitioners, the petitioner Bhushan Anil Thakre
named as leader of the gang was not given any opportunity to put-
forth his say in the proceeding before respondent no.2 who has
passed one of the orders i.e. order dated 04/11/2020. However, on
perusal of the said order, it is clearly evident that Bhushan Anil
Thakre was served twice through his father and brother but still
remained absent. Even the other petitioners at the time of making
statements before respondent no.2 were asked to keep petitioner
Bhushan Anil Thakre for hearing. The order further indicates that
despite such intimation to other petitioners about keeping Bhushan
Anil Thakre present for the hearing, he remained absent. Moreover,
it is most important to note that petitioner Bhushan Anil Thakre in
the appeal heard by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Nashik had
fled his statement in writing for assailing the order dated
04/11/2020. Therefore, we do not fnd any substance in the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner
11 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
Bhushan Anil Thakre termed as gang leader was not given any
opportunity to put-forth his submissions in respect of the impugned
order dated 25/06/202. Further it appears that he intentionally
remained absent before respondent no.2 while passing the frst order
dated 04/11/2020. As such, it cannot be held that he was denied
an opportunity of being heard.
11. Further, it is extremely important to note that all the
petitioners except petitioner Bhushan Anil Thakre before respondent
no.2, had not disputed the fact in respect of the crimes mentioned in
the notice being registered against them. It appears that they had
specifcally admitted before respondent no.2 at the time of hearing
that they would not commit any criminal activities further. Even the
petitioner Bhushan Anil Thakre has also not denied registration of
crimes as mentioned in the notice against him in his written
submission fled before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
Division in Externment Appeal No. 104 of 2020. He only claimed
that since those offences were registered against other persons
including the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be termed as a gang
indulged in so many criminal activities. Thus, it is not denied by the
petitioners that the aforesaid crimes mentioned in the notice dated
19/08/2020 are registered against them.
12 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
12. In the notice dated 19/08/2020 the crimes registered against
all the petitioners are mentioned in detail and the registration of the
same is also not denied by the petitioners. On perusal of those
crimes it is evident that all the petitioners appear to be involved in
the serious crimes relating to commission of rioting being members
of an unlawful assembly, abusing, criminal trespass, use of
dangerous weapon for committing an attempt of murder, spreading
of communal dissatisfaction, outraging modesty of child etc.
Moreover, it appears that all the petitioners are common accused in
Crime Nos.268 of 2016 and 110 of 2020 registered at Dhule Taluka
Police Station. Further, most of the petitioners appear to be involved
in other crimes also. Those crimes have taken place during the
period from 2015 to 2020. As such, on the basis of those crimes it
can easily be inferred that all the petitioners have involved in serious
criminal activities being the members of gang. Therefore,
considering all these activities the prime requirement of Section 55
of the Maharashtra Police Act appears to be satisfed. Moreover, it is
also evident from the impugned orders that the gang leader
petitioner Bhushan Anil Thakre is also involved in the Crime No.119
of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 420, 468 of
IPC and under Section 65(b)(c) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
registered at Parola Police Station and has absconded to avoid his
13 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
arrest. Not only this but there are also chapter cases against all the
petitioners under Section 110 and 107 of Cr.P.C. registered at the
instance of Dhule Taluka Police Station. In addition to that there
are also in-camera statements of witnesses which indicate that how
there is an intimidation in the area of these petitioners in the mind
of common public.
13. Further on perusal of both the impugned orders it is evident
that respondent no.2 as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners in all the present
petitions are required to be dispersed from the area mentioned in
those orders as they were fully satisfed about the same. On going
through these orders we have also found that considering crimes
registered against the petitioners being the gang leader and gang
members are required to be dispersed as their presence in the area
mentioned in the orders is dangerous to the public at large. Thus,
we are satisfed about the observations mentioned in the impugned
orders by the concerned authorities.
14. Thus, on perusal of entire material on record, it has been
revealed that the petitioners being the gang members have indulged
into so many serious criminal activities and therefore, we fnd that
they are required to be dispersed from the area mentioned in the
14 JUDGMENT COMMON IN WP 1214-21+
impugned orders as contemplated in Section 55 of the Maharashtra
Police Act. Therefore, we fnd no merit in all the aforesaid petitions
as the petitioners are rightly externed from the places mentioned in
the impugned orders. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
I) All the writ petitions are hereby dismissed
and disposed of accordingly.
II) Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)
vsm/-
