Bombay High Court
Karan Ravi Bhoir vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 June, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:15004-DB
1/5 19-WP-752-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 752 OF 2023
Karan Ravi Bhoir ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
------
Mr. Sudhir Patole for Petitioner.
Mr. A.R. Patil APP, for the State/Respondents.
------
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 7th JUNE, 2023.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Patole, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. A.R. Patil, learned APP for the State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable by consent of both the parties
forthwith.
3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd May,
2022, passed by the Respondent No.4 Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-5, Wagale Estate, Thane, externing the Petitioner from the limits
of districts - Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Raigad, Palghar and
Thane for a period of 2 years.
Bhalchandra
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 21:53:02 :::
2/5 19-WP-752-2023.odt
4. The Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated
29th March, 2022 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
After that, considering the record the Externing Authority passed the
impugned externment order. The order is based on the three
registered offences i.e. C.R. Nos. 287 of 2020, 293 of 2020 and 341 of
2021, registered at Kasarwadavli Police Station, Thane. Apart from
these offences, there is reference to statements of two witnesses 'A' and
'B' as well as the other prohibitory action taken under Section 107 of
Cr.P.C.
5. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an Appeal i.e. Appeal
No. 88 of 2022 before the Appellate Authority - Zonal Commissioner,
Konkan Bhawan under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
1951. The said Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 7 th November,
2022.
6. Apart from the grounds raised in the Petition, the learned
counsel for the Petitioner heavily relied on the observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Versus State of
Maharashtra and Others as reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99 . He
submitted that as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was
necessary for the Exerning Authority to have given some reasons as to
Bhalchandra
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 21:53:02 :::
3/5 19-WP-752-2023.odt
why the Petitioner was externed for the maximum permissible period
of two years from those areas.
7. Learned APP submitted that considering the serious
allegations and the past record of the Petitioner, the order for the
maximum period of two years was justified.
8. I have considered these submissions. This Writ Petition
deserves to be allowed on the sole ground that the Externing Authority
has not recorded any reasons or satisfaction as to why the Petitioner
was externed for the entire period of two years. In this context,
paragraph No. 17 of the aforesaid Judgment is relevant, which reads
thus :
"17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent
that while passing an order under Section 56, the
competent authority must mention the area or District
or Districts in respect of which the order has been
made. Moreover, the competent authority is required
to specify the period for which the restriction will
remain in force. The maximum period provided for is
of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the
part of the competent authority is required for deciding
the duration of the restraint order under Section 56.
On the basis of objective assessment of the material on
record, the authority has to record its subjective
satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a
Bhalchandra
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 21:53:02 :::
4/5 19-WP-752-2023.odt
specific period. When the competent authority passes
an order for the maximum permissible period of two
years, the order of externment must disclose an
application of mind by the competent authority and
the order must record its subjective satisfaction about
the necessity of passing an order of externment for the
maximum period of two years which is based on
material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned
order of externment dated 15th December, 2020 shows
that it does not disclose any application of mind on this
aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of
the Respondent No.2 on the basis of material on record
that the order of externment should be for maximum
period of two years. 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. Perusal of the impugned externment order shows that no
such satisfaction or reasons are mentioned in the order as to why the
Petitioner was externed for the maximum period of two years.
Therefore, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak's
case are squarely applicable to the Petitioner's case and therefore, the
Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order :
Bhalchandra
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 21:53:02 :::
5/5 19-WP-752-2023.odt
ORDER
i. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b), which read thus :
Deputy Commissioner of Police/Division 5/
Externment/(09/22)/2464 of 2022 dated 23rd
May, 2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b. Appellate order dated 07/11/2022 passed by
respondent No.5 i.e. Appellate Authority be
quashed and set aside."
ii. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Bhalchandra
