Bombay High Court
Ramesh Harji Bhura vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 18 January, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 3 4.WP(St).254.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.254 OF 2024
Ramesh Harji Bhura Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.1393 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.254 OF 2024
Atul Govind Surwade Intervenor
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Mr.Rajesh V. Adrekar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.Sayaji D. Nangre, Advocate for Intervenor.
Mr.Arfan Sait, APP, for State.
Mr.Mayur Shevale, PSI, Talasari Police Station, present.
Adv.Dhananjay Lokhande, Law Officer, SDO, Dahanu, present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 18th January 2024
PC :
1. Petitioner challenges the order of externment dated 12 th July
2023 passed by Respondent no.3 whereby Petitioner has been
externed from the area of District Palghar for a period of two years.
2. The order of externment was challenged by Petitioner by
preferring appeal before Divisional Commissioner. The appeal was
dismissed vide order dated 6th December 2023.
3. The order of externment refers to two cases registered against
Petitioner with Talasari Police Station vide CR No.203/2022 and CR
No.87 of 2022. Reference is also made to two N.C complaints
registered against Petitioner and numbered as NC No.114/2022 and
464/2022.
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:00:59 :::
2 of 3 4.WP(St).254.2024.doc
4. The injured witness in C.R No.87 of 2022 has preferred
application for intervention viz.Interim Application (Stamp) No.1393
of 2024.
5. Learned advocate for Petitioner submitted that impugned
order is bad in law. Intervenor has no locus to intervene. It was
issued after a period of about more than five months. Petitioner has
been externed for a period of two years. The externing authority has
not recorded subjective satisfaction about externing the Petitioner for
the maximum period of two years. Civil litigation is pending in
respect to the issue involved in C.R No.87 of 2022. Reliance is
placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1.
6. Learned APP submitted that there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. The order reflects application of mind. Petitioner
was involved in serious offences. Several persons were involved in
C.R No.87 of 2022. The fact that Petitioner has been externed from
Palghar District itself indicate that externing authority has applied its
mind. There has to be conjoint reading of reasons recorded in the
order of externment and the purpose for which Petitioner has been
externed. The injury certificate fortifies the fact that several persons
were injured. The decision relied upon by Petitioner itself indicate
that subjective satisfaction has to be reflected in the order. Elaborate
reasons are not reasons. Hence order of externment is required to be
confirmed.
7. Considering the nature of proceedings, the intervenor cannot
intervene. However, hearing is given to learned advocate for
intervenor to assist the Court. Mr.Nangre appearing for Intervenor
submitted that Petitioner has not abided by the order of externment.
He still continues to stay in the area from which he has been
1 2022-SCC OnLine-SC-99
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 17:00:59 :::
3 of 3 4.WP(St).254.2024.doc
externed. Petitioner has to first comply the order. Petitioner has
been externed from one district for a period of two years. He
submitted that letter issued by Sarpanch of village indicate that
Petitioner is roaming in the area from which he is externed. Reliance
is placed on decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Hakim
Jamirulla Khan @ Bakkal Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Kokan
Divisional and others2.
8. As stated hereinabove, the externing authority has relied upon
cases against Petitioner. The respondents have not initiated any
action against Petitioner for breach of order. Petitioner was granted
anticipatory bail in C.R No.87 of 2022. The decision of Supreme
Court in the case of Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
(supra) indicate that while exercising powers for issuing order of
externment, the competent authority is not expected to write a
judgment containing elaborate reasons, however, must record its
subjective satisfaction to arrive at the conclusion and the externment
order should reflect application of mind.
9. Considering the circumstances I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Rule;
(ii) There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b)
till final disposal of writ petition;
(iii) Hearing expedited;
(iv) Interim Application (Stamp) No.1393 of 2024 is disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
2 AIROnline-2023-BOM-1733
