Bombay High Court
Rohit Manoj Verma vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 25 October, 2021
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M. S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
1 43-wp-646-21j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2021
Rohit Manoj Verma,
Aged 28 years, Occ. Property Dealer,
R/o. House No. 682, Nayapura,
Premnagar, Zenda Chowk,
Nagpur 440002 . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S..
1. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone No. 3, Nagpur. . . . RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mir Rizwan Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V. A. Thakre, A.P.P. for respondents/State.
CORAM:- M. S. SONAK AND
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATED:- 25.10.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.):-
1. Heard Shri Mir Rizwan Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri V. A. Thakre learned A.P.P. for State.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and consent of the learned counsel for the parties. ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:32:38 :::
2 43-wp-646-21j.odt
3. The challenge in this petition is to the externment order no. 4/2021, dated 15.02.2021 made by respondent no. 2 herein invoking the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (the said Act).
4. The record indicates that against the impugned order, the petitioner instituted an appeal but, the appeal came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2021.
5. The impugned order refers to the following 7 cases registered against the petitioner and then proceeds to state that on account of these 7 cases, the Externing Authority is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is engaged in the commission of offenses involving force or violence or offenses under Chapter 12, 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. The externment order also contains a statement that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner for the reason or apprehension on their part for the safety of their person or property.
Sr. Police Station Crime No./Section Date Court Case No. Result No.
1. Shantinagar 125/2017, Sections 04.10.2017 4039/2017, Dtd. Subjudice 452, 323, 294, 506B, 34 06.11.2017 of IPC
2. Shantinagar 3035/2018, Sections 23.04.2018 15847/2018, Subjudice 160 of IPC Dtd. 10.07.2018
3. Shantinagar 111/2019, Sections 12 22.03.2019 20210/2019, Subjudice of Gambling Act Dtd. 02.08.2019 ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:32:38 ::: 3 43-wp-646-21j.odt
4. Shantinagar 324/2019, Section 12 31.08.2019 26055/2019, Subjudice of Gambling Act Dtd. 16.10.2019
5. Shantinagar 401/2019, Section 19.10.2019 4056/2020, Dtd. Subjudice 65(e) of Prohibition Act 25.02.2020
6. Shantinagar 406/2019, Sections 27.10.2019 733/2020, Dtd. Subjudice 324, 323, 34 of IPC 28.02.2020
7. Shantinagar 400/2020, Sections 03.09.2020 -- Under 294, 506, 323, 427, 34 Investigatio of IPC n
6. From the instances referred to above, it is apparent that instance nos. 3 to 5 concern offenses under Prohibition Act and Gambling Act. There are no allegations that such offenses involved any force or violence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, prima facie, such offenses ought not to have been taken into account for reaching substantive satisfaction necessary to issue impugned externment order. Besides, even these are the instances relating to the year 2019, while the impugned order has been made only on 15.02.2021. The nexus or the live link between these instances and the impugned order has not been satisfactorily explained either in the impugned externment order or in the affidavit filed in defense of the same.
7. Similarly, we find that the first two instances relate to the cases registered against the petitioner on 04.10.2017 and 23.04.2018. Again, there is nothing in the impugned externment order or in the affidavit filed in defense of the same to establish any live link between these instances and the substantive satisfaction reached for making the ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:32:38 ::: 4 43-wp-646-21j.odt impugned externment order. Based upon such stale instances, the Externing Authority could not have believed that there are reasonable grounds as contemplated by Section 56(1)(b) of the said Act.
8. The last 2 instances no doubt relate to the offenses under the requisite Chapter of the Indian Penal Code. However, one of these cases came to be registered on 27.10.2019, alleging that the petitioner has committed offenses under Sections 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Again, we feel that even this instance does not provide a live link for reaching the requisite subjective satisfaction for making the impugned externment order.
9. The last instance is Case No. 400/2020, alleging inter alia commission of an offense under Sections 294, 506, 323, and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This is an instance dated 03.09.2020. Based on this solitary instance, we feel that the Externing Authority could not have entertained the reasonable grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 56(1)(b) or for that matter 56(1)(a) of the said Act.
10. There is a vague reference to confidential statements of some witnesses. However, based upon such a vague statement, the Externing Authority could not have concluded that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner because of ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:32:38 ::: 5 43-wp-646-21j.odt apprehension on their part regards the safety of their person or property. This is also a case where it is difficult to discern the impact of relevant material if at all, and the irrelevant material taken into account by the Externing Authority. At least, in this case, the severability is rendered quite difficult. Neither the impugned order nor the affidavit filed in defense of the same makes any reference to this aspect.
11. Upon cumulative consideration of the material on record as also the return filed in defense of the impugned externment order, we are satisfied that the impugned externment order warrants interference in the facts of the present case.
12. Accordingly, the impugned externment order is hereby set aside and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
(PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (M. S. SONAK, J.)
RR Jaiswal
::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2021 02:32:38 :::