Nitesh Bajrang Piwal vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4340 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:12877
                                                                               50-wp1066-2023.doc


                    AGK
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO.1066 OF 2023


                    Nitesh Bajrang Piwal                           ... Petitioner
                               V/s.
                    The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                ... Respondents

                    Mr. Shanice Mansukhani for the petitioner.
                    Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for respondent no.1/State.


                                                 CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                 DATED      : APRIL 27, 2023
                    P.C.:

1. The writ petition is directed against legality and validity of the order of externment dated 20 May 2022 passed by respondent no.2 confirmed by respondent no.1 in appeal.

2. The petitioner has been externed for period of two years from 20 May 2022. The offences considered by the respondent no.2 are Crime No.32 of 2021 under section 509 of IPC; Crime No.243 of 2020 for offence under section 326, 324, 323, 337, 504, 143, 147 and 149; and in Cognizable Case No.509 of 2021 for offence under section 504 & 506 of the IPC.

3. According to the petitioner, C.R. No.243 of 2022 is the result of cross-complaint between the parties.

4. On perusal of order dated 20 May 2022, it appears that the petitioner has been externed for period of two years from Mumbai

50-wp1066-2023.doc

City, Mumbai Suburban, Navi Mumbai and Thane.

5. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Deepak Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 99 : AIR 2022 SC 1241, it is submitted that while externing a person for period of two years, application of mind on the point of necessity of externing a person for period of two years is necessary.

6. Learned APP submitted that necessary satisfaction is in-built in the order. The offence registered against the petitioner are sufficient to pass order of externment against the petitioner for two years.

7. I have heard learned advocates for the parties.

8. The Apex Court in paragraph 13 in Deepak Laxman Dongre (supra) has held as under:

"13. ... If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India."

9. The Apex Court has held that recording of subjective satisfaction on the necessity of externing a person for maximum period of two years sine qua non exercising powers under Section 156 of the Maharashtra Police Act. On perusal of the order, I find that such subjective satisfaction about necessity to extern the petitioner for two years has not been recorded, hence, the impugned order cannot sustain.

50-wp1066-2023.doc

10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)