Bombay High Court
Swapnil S/O Arun Bhure vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:10155-DB
1 903.cri.wp.346.2024 J..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.346 OF 2024
Swapnil s/o Arun Bhure, aged about
23 years, Occupation : Driver,
Resident of Tadeshwar Ward, Pauni,
Tahsil Pauni, District Bhandara.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, Tq. And Distt.
Nagpur.
2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhandara,
Tq. And Distt. Bhandara.
... RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________
Shri Raju Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.H. Joshi, Addl.P.P. for the State.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 03.09.2024.
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
2 903.cri.wp.346.2024 J..odt
finally with the consent of both sides.
2. The petitioner has been externed by respondent
no.2 Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhandara vide impugned
order dated 22.03.2024 for the period of six months from
entire Bhandara District. The petitioner has challenged the
said order of externment stating to be unreasonable,
unjustified, arbitrary and against the provisions of law.
3. The State resisted this petition by filing a reply
justifying the action initiated by respondent no.2. It is
submitted that there exist reasonable grounds for believing
that the petitioner is engaged in the commission of offence
falling under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. After
receipt of proposal, preliminary inquiry was done. Notices
under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for
short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been issued and
on being found explanation unsatisfactory, the order of
externment has been passed.
3 903.cri.wp.346.2024 J..odt
4. The impugned order bears a Chart stating that the
petitioner has committed three offences pertaining to theft in
past proximity, which are pending in the Courts. Crime
No.259/2022 was registered at Pawani Police Station on
27.02.2023, Crime No.121/2023 registered at Pawani Police
Station on 17.07.2023 whilst Crime No.222/2023 was
registered on 16.06.2021. Besides that twice prohibitory
actions has been initiated against the petitioner. It reveals that
the petitioner was continuously indulging into sand theft
activities. During the process, the Police have recorded
statements of two secrete witnesses, who stated that the
petitioner is indulging into the activities of sand theft. The
petitioner used to threaten the locals and thus, the people are
not willing to come forward to give the report against the
petitioner. The SDPO has verified those statements. It is not in
dispute that the prior Show Cause Notice under Section 59 of
the Act has been issued and hearing was given to the
petitioner.
5. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this
4 903.cri.wp.346.2024 J..odt
Court in case of Ganesh s/o Sunil Adhav vs. State of
Maharashtra and anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No.45/2024)
dated 22.04.2024, however it pertains to the action under
Section 57 of the Act. The petitioner also relied on the
decision of this Court in case of Naushad Ali s/o Rehman Ali
Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. (Criminal Writ Petition
No.901/2022) dated 19.06.2023, which relates to action
taken under Section 55 of the Act.
6. On account of continuous offence falling under
Chapter XVII of the IPC, the Superintendent of Police,
Bhandara District has submitted a proposal for externment
dated 10.10.2023. On receipt of proposal, preliminary inquiry
was done and notices were issued. The impugned order
indicates that there are continuous offences of sand theft.
Moreover, in-camera statements of secrete witnesses show
that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give
evidence against the petitioner. The apprehension is well
founded. The very purpose of initiating action under Section
56 of the Act is to desist the repeated offenders from
5 903.cri.wp.346.2024 J..odt
indulging into illegal activities. The action on the part of
respondent no.2 is well justified on the ground stated therein.
7. In view of that, we find no substance, hence the
criminal writ petition stands rejected.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
