Bombay High Court
Noorlen @ Noor Umar Khan vs The Divisional Commissioner And Anr on 7 September, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 3271
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: S. S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
Digitally
signed by
UMESH
1 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt
UMESH RAMESH
RAMESH SHINDE
SHINDE Date:
2021.09.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
14:40:49
+0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2283 OF 2021
Mr. Noorlen @ Noor Umar Khan ]
Age - 25 years, Occ. : Nil ]
Residing at Masjid Chawl, Rajendra Nagar, ]
Borivali (East) ] ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Divisional Commissioner, ]
Kokan Division, Old Sachivalay, 1st floor, ]
Next to Elphinstone College, Kalaghoda, ]
Fort, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, ]
Zone-XII, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. ]
3. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondents
Mrs. Veena J. Kamble for Petitioner.
Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State.
CORAM :- S. S. SHINDE &
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 11 AUGUST, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON :- 07 SEPTEMBER, 2021
JUDGMENT (PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 23/03/2021 in Appeal No.16/2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 URS 1 of 9 2 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the externment order bearing No. 50$lh$43$ifj-12$21 dated 21/01/2021, passed by the Respondent No.2, came to be dismissed.
3. The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :
(a) An externment proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner at the instance of Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai, on the premise that the movements and acts of the Petitioner were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner was engaged or was about to be engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence or offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'Penal Code') and the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the Petitioner for the fear of reprisal.
(b) A show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 01/10/2020. The sponsoring authority alleged therein that two offences were registered against the Petitioner at Kasturba Marg Police Station. First, C.R.No.126/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the URS 2 of 9 3 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt Penal Code. Second, C.R.No.780/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Penal Code. Preventive action was also initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., 1973. However, the Petitioner continued to indulge in criminal activities with impunity. It was further alleged that on account of reign of terror created by the Petitioner, witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against the Petitioner in public as they feared for the safety of their life and property. Hence, in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded. It transpired that the Petitioner, alongwith his associates, was committing offences armed with deadly weapons and extorting money from innocent and unsuspecting persons within the jurisdiction of Kasturba Marg Police Station. Hence, it was proposed to extern the Petitioner from the limits of Mumbai city and suburban and Thane districts for 2 years.
The Petitioner gave reply to the show-cause notice.
(c) After an enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone- XII, Mumbai, was persuaded to pass the impugned order of externment whereby the Petitioner was externed from the limits of Mumbai city, suburban and Thane districts for the period of 2 years.
URS 3 of 9
4 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt
(d) Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, being Externment Appeal No.16/2021. By the impugned order dated 23/03/2021, the Respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal opining, inter alia, that no fault can be found with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
(e) Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court.
4. We have heard Mrs. Veena Kamble, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K. V. Saste, learned APP for State at length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for parties, we have also perused the material on record including the original record of the externment proceeding tendered by the learned APP.
5. Mrs. Veena Kamble, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urged that the impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the authority by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. There was no justification for initiation of the externment proceedings against the Petitioner. On the basis of only one C.R., registered against the Petitioner, drastic action of externing the Petitioner from such a vast area, and that too for a period of 2 years, has been taken by the URS 4 of 9 5 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt authorities without application of mind, urged Mrs. Kamble. It was further submitted that C.R.No.780/2020, on the strength of which the Petitioner came to be externed, was registered by the first informant therein to give a counterblast to the C.R.No.779/2020 registered by the Petitioner in respect of the very same occurrence. Mrs. Kamble urged with a degree of vehemence that the confidential statements of witnesses could not have been relied upon as from the material on record it becomes abundantly clear that during the period the alleged incidents occurred, the Petitioner was in custody in C.R.No.780/2020.
6. In opposition to this, Mr. Saste, learned APP for State, supported the impugned orders. It was submitted that the authorities have arrived at the subjective satisfaction on the basis of relevant material. The sufficiency or adequacy of the material cannot be delved into by this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
7. We have carefully perused the show-cause notice dated 01/10/2020 and the externment order dated 21/01/2021. From a conjoint reading of the show-cause notice and the externment order, it becomes abundantly clear that the Respondent No.2 has essentially banked upon one crime i.e. C.R.No.780/2020 and in-camera statements of two witnesses, recorded on 02/09/2020 and 04/09/2020 respectively.
URS 5 of 9
6 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt
The narration of facts in respect of C.R.No.780/2020 reveals that there was an altercation between the first informant party and the Petitioner and his alleged accomplices. The Petitioner and his associates allegedly assaulted the brother of the first informant. The victim had sustained grievous injuries.
8. It is imperative to note that the Petitioner has contended in the reply to the show-cause notice itself that the Petitioner had initially lodged FIR bearing no.779/2020 in respect of the very same occurrence against the first informant in C.R.No.780/2020 viz. Chand Pasha Khan as the aunt of the Petitioner was assaulted and her modesty was outraged. From the perusal of the externment order, it does not appear that the externing authority adverted to this aspect at all. It is trite law that a case and a cross-case in respect of an occurrence are nothing but two versions of one and the same occurrence. It is not the case that C.R.No.779/2020 has not been registered at the instance of the Petitioner. Failure to consider this aspect impairs the action on the part of the externing authority as the offences, for which the Petitioner has been arraigned, are apparently individualistic in nature. If the genesis of the offences is in the dispute between two groups of persons then resort to the provisions of preventive action, without adverting to the reported counter version of the petitioner, may not be justifiable.
URS 6 of 9
7 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt
9. Though the externing authority has referred to C.R.No. 126/2019, yet the said crime has not been taken into account to base the externment order. Moreover, the offences alleged therein do not appear to have been committed in the immediate past so as to establish a proximate link between C.R.No.126/2019 and C.R.No.780/2020.
10. The fate of externment order thus hangs in balance on the statements of two confidential witnesses. The tenor of the statements of the witnesses, recorded in-camera, is that the Petitioner extorted money by causing harm armed with deadly weapons. While the Petitioner assaulted and extorted the money, persons gathered. However, on account of terror created by the Petitioner, nobody came forward to rescue the witnesses. For witness 'A', the incident occurred in the last week of July 2020. For witness 'B', the incident took place in the first week of August 2020.
11. Mrs. Kamble, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, invited the attention of the Court to the fact that in connection with C.R.No.780/2020, the incident reported in which allegedly occurred on 26/07/2020, the Petitioner was arrested on 27/07/2020 and released on bail on 03/08/2020. This factor singularly demonstrates the unreliability of the confidential statements, submitted Mrs. Kamble.
URS 7 of 9
8 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt
12. Mr. Saste, learned APP for State, joined the issue by canvassing a submission that after the Petitioner took the said contention, the authorities reverified the truthfulness and correctness of the incidents reported by those witnesses and found that, as a matter of fact, those incidents did occur in the last week of July 2020 and first week of August 2020.
13. We are afraid to accede to the submission of Mr. Saste, learned APP for State. The fact that the Petitioner was in custody for almost the entire last week of July 2020 dismantles the very substratum of the confidential statement of witness 'A'. In the absence of any cogent material, the satisfaction recorded by the externing authority that the Petitioner indulged in those activities immediately before his arrest and after release on bail, is unworthy of acceptance. The time gap is too close for comfort. The fact that the Petitioner was in custody in connection with C.R.No.780/2020 in the last week of 2020 and the first week of August 2020 runs counter to the claim of the witnesses. It is imperative to note that the witnesses, despite reverification, do not claim that the incidents occurred on a particular date. We are conscious of the fact that exact date and time of the offending activities are not required to be disclosed. But, in a case like the present one, where the approximate time of occurrence clashes with the period during which the externee was in URS 8 of 9 9 WP 2283-21-Judgment.odt custody, failure to indicate the precise date of occurrence, renders the claim of witnesses in the corridor of uncertainty. Non-consideration of this vital aspect impairs the subjective satisfaction.
14. The upshot of aforesaid consideration is that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Respondent No.2 is vitiated. The Respondent No.1 also fell in error in not correcting the mistake which the Respondent No.2 had fallen into. In the totality of the circumstances, in our view, the externment order impinges upon the fundamental right of the Petitioner to move freely and reside at the place of his abode. Hence, we are persuaded to allow the petition. Thus, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23/03/2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.16/2021 and the externment order dated 21/01/2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) URS 9 of 9