Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O Kantilal Nirpagare vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 January, 2016
Author: A.V. Nirgude
Bench: A.V.Nirgude
(1) crwp1492.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1492 OF 2015
Sachin s/o. Kantilal Nirpagare .. Petitioner
Age. 22 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Nyaynagar, Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra ig .. Respondents
Through Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Zone-1/Special Executive Magistrate,
Aurangabad.
4. Superintendent of Police,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
Mr. M.R. Deshmukh h/f. Mr. S.B. Rajebhosale, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE &
INDIRA K.JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 07.01.2016
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:09:38 :::
(2) crwp1492.15
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is challenging the concurrent orders passed by Police authorities directing his externment under section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. It has come on record that the petitioner resides within local limits of Mukundwadi Police Station of Aurangabad. He had committed various offences mostly within the smaller area around Mukundwadi, Cidco and Kranti Chowk. We are aware that all three police stations referred to above are located within 4-5 kms. The proceedings in respect of offences punishable under sections 324, 504, 506, 395, and 398 of Indian Penal Code and of rioting etc. are pending against the petitioner. We have no doubt that such person could be terror in the locality and externment proceeding were justified. However, the authorities did not give reasons as to why the petitioner is externed beyond the district limit of Aurangabad. There is nothing on record to indicate that the area of operation of the petitioner is entire district. He appears to be a miscreants of the city.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:09:38 :::(3) crwp1492.15 The authorities did not give reason as to why he is externed from entire Aurangabad district. On similar premise, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanket Balkrushna Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2013 (12) LJSOFT 248 took a view that the reasons are required to be recorded as to why the externee is externed beyond entire district. In case, such reasons are not mentioned, the order is excessive and deserves to be set aside.
3. We have no hesitation to follow the ratio of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanket (Supra). We are inclined to allow this writ petition.
4. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C). Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.
[INDIRA K.JAIN,J.] [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] snk/2016/JAN16//crwp1492.15 ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:09:38 :::