Balram S/O Diman Singh Dangi vs State Of Mah. Divisional ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10516 Bom

                                    1



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


              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 525/2022


      Balaram S/o Diman Singh Dangi,
      age 45 years, Occ. Kirana Shop,
      R/o. Flat No. T-301, Krishna Niwas,
      behind Hero Hemkund Motors, Zngabai Takli,
      Mankapur, Nagpur.

                                               ... PETITIONER

                               VERSUS

1. State of Maharashtra,
   through Divisional Commissioner,
   Civil Lines, Nagpur.

2. State of Maharashtra,
   through Deputy Commissioner of
   Police Zone - V, Nagpur City, Office,
   at Wardhaman Nagar, near Haldiram
   Factory, Old Bhandara Road,
   Dist. Nagpur.

3. State of Maharashtra,
   Assistant Commissioner of Police
   Jaripatka Division, Nagpur.

4. The Police Station Officer,
   Police Station Koradi, Nagpur.
                                              ... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
       Mr. O. K. Masurke, Advocate, with Mr. R. A. Biranware,
       Advocate for petitioner.
       Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
______________________________________________________________
                                    2



                 CORAM                       : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                 CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT   :        07.10.2022.
                 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :        11.10.2022.


JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

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

dated 30.12.2021, whereby the petitioner was externed for the period

of one year from specific area of Nagpur district. The order has been

passed in terms of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The petitioner has challenged the order in statutory appeal, however it

was dismissed.

4. The challenge to the impugned order is raised on the

ground of inadequacy of sufficient material, absence of subjective

satisfaction. So also, it has been argued that the Authorities have not

verified the in-camera statement and the order is excessive. The State

resisted the petition by filing reply-affidavit. Precisely, the State has

justified the impugned action of externment.

5. The order of externment is based on five offences registered

against the petitioner during the period from 02.08.2020 to

05.05.2021. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the offences registered against the petitioners are of

personal nature. Most of the offences are registered by the petitioner's

landlord and his kith and kin. He took me through the explanation

given by the petitioner to all the offences to contend about falsity of the

crime registered against him. The first offence is registered on

02.08.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 354(D), 294,

323, 504. 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code, whilst the last offence is

dated 05.05.2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 385, 294,

506(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Though the petitioner has argued

that all the offences are registered by his landlord and his relatives,

however that cannot be assumed without substantial material.

6. It reveals that a several offences falling under Chapter XVI

and XVII of the Indian Penal Code have been registered. The record

indicates that on 26.05.2021, Senior Police Inspector of Koradi Police

Station has forwarded externment proposal. The Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Jaripatka, Nagpur made necessary inquiry.

Notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act was served on

the petitioner on 15.06.2021. The petitioner has appeared and

furnished his explanation, meaning thereby the opportunity of hearing

was given to the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the decision of this

Court in case of of Mohamad Yusuf Mohmad Ibrahim Momin Alias

Yusuf Raza Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and others, AIROnline 2020

Bomb 436 to contend that in absence of details and verification of in-

camera statements, the action vitiates. The case in hand is

distinguishable on facts. Show cause notice discloses the gist of the

statements of secret witness. Para 4.1 and 4.2 of the show cause notice

state substance of the in-camera statements along with specific time

and event. Moreover, the impugned order itself bears reference at para

8 that the Assistant Police Commissioner has verified the contents of

in-camera statements for which subjective satisfaction has been

recorded.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance

on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Deepak Laxman

Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIROline 2022 SC 70

would submit that the order of externment must be reasonable one,

unless the exceptional circumstances exist, a right of liberty cannot be

curtailed. Undoubtedly, the order of externment would deprive the

personal liberty of individual, however for cogent reasons, exception

can be carved out. Reading of entire order discloses that the action is

based on several offences registered in proximity to the action of

externment. Pertinent to note that after registration of initial three

offences, the prohibitory action was taken. However, despite that, the

petitioner has committed two further offences. The Authority has

recorded its subjective satisfaction regarding existence of grounds

falling under Clause (a) and (b) to Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra

Police Act. It is not a case that there is no material for initiating action

or the Authority has considered irrelevant material. The object of the

provision is to protect the local or contiguous area from probable

danger of commission of offence by the externees. The impugned order

indicates that the Authorities have recorded subjective satisfaction that

the externee is engaging in commission of offences involving force or

violence and there is likelihood of repetition of offence.

8. Pertinent to note that the Authority has externed the

petitioner from specific area of Nagpur District, for the period of one

year which itself discloses due application of mind. In substance, the

action of externment is based on substantive material. The Authority

has recorded its subjective satisfaction and thus, the order of

externment calls no interference.

9. In view of above, petition stands dismissed and disposed of.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Gohane

JITENDRA BHARAT GOHANE Digitally signed by JITENDRA BHARAT GOHANE Date: 2022.10.12 19:19:47 +0530