Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1683 OF 2021
Shri Jeetendra Ashok Bhosale
36 years, Occ.: Business r/o. Bungalow No.3, Survey No.230
Near Ganga Nebula Society, Vimanagar
Pune – 411 014
… Petitioner
Vs
1) The Divisional Commissioner
Council Hall, Pune
2) The Commissioner of Police officer of C.P., Sadhu Vaswani Road, Pune
3) Deputy Commissioner of Police
Zone – IV, Pune City, 1st floor, Gunjan Theater Chowk, Yerwada Zonal Office, Pune
4) Asstt. Commissioner of Police
Yerwada Division, Yerwada, Pune
5) The State of Maharashtra
… Respondents
Mr.D.P. Adsule for the Petitioner
Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP, for Respondent – State
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive prayer clauses: “(c) That the Impugned Order dated 24/02/2021 passed by Respondent No.1 in Externment/Appeal/SR/EA_5/2021 be quashed and set aside.
(d) That the Impugned Order of Externment dated
06/01/2021, bearing no.03/2021, passed by the Res. No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune City, Pune be quashed and set aside.”
3. The brief facts leaving to the filing of this petition are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents issued externment order on the basis of the same material which was considered as the basis to initiate the externment proceedings earlier which were subsequently dropped. On 28.5.2019, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide an externment order as to why he should not be externed from the area which was mentioned in the notice. Pursuant to the said notice, the proceedings were initiated, however, on 24.1.2020, the said proceedings were dropped. Again on 3.9.2020, another notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, on 2.10.2020, on the basis of the report received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued notice to the petitioner. After hearing the parties, on 6.4.2021, the impugned externment order was issued by respondent No.3 thereby externing the petitioner for two years from the area mentioned in the notice and the impugned order.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2021, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act alongwith stay application. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of externment is excessive. Secondly, there is no live link between the alleged offences registered against the petitioner and initiation of the externment proceedings. Thirdly, the earlier externment proceedings, on the same material, were dropped by the respondent – authorities and, therefore, there was no reason to initiate the proceedings on the basis of the same material. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed that the petition may be allowed. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgements: 1] Sachin Bhaskar Badgujar v/s State of Mah. (Cri. WP No.41 of 2018); 2] Subhash Ganu Bhoir v/s K. P. Raghuwanshi & ors, (1987(1) Bom. C. R. 425); 3] Ravi s/o Raju Bhalerao v/s State of Mah. (2017 All MR (Cri.) 4646); 4] Sadashiv P Gondhalkar v/s State of Mah. (Cri. WP No.1032 of 2017); 5] Kailas D. Kolpe v/s. Div. Commissioner, Nashik, (2017 All MR (Cri.) 4517); 6] Narayan M. Khilani v/s State of Mah. (1986 (1) Bom. C.R. 122); 7] Anna Bhimrao Dhavale v/s State of Maharashtra and others; (2016 DGLS (Bom) 1196); 8] Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi v/s The Dy. Commissioner of Police & ors. (2016 All MR (Cri) 3056); 9] Aslam /o Shabbir Shaikhy v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. (2017 All MR (Cri) 3736); 10] Zumbar s/o Goroba Kadam vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, (2017 All MR (Cri) 843); 11] Bilal Gulam Rasul Patel v/s Div. Magistrate & others, (Cri. WP No.3950 of 2013)
6. Ms.Pai, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent – State, relying upon the reasons recorded in the impugned order of externment and also by the appellate authority, submitted that the petition is devoid of any merit and the same may be dismissed.
7. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. With the able assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the Respondent – State, we have carefully perused the pleadings and the grounds taken in the petition, the annexures thereto and the reasons assigned by the respondent – authorities while passing the impugned externment order and while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It appears that the following offences were registered against the petitioner: Sr.No. Police Station C.R. No. Sections Current Status
1. Vimantal 243/2014 324, 323, 504, 427, 34 of IPC Subjudice
2. Vimantal 34/2016 (NC) 504, 5046(1) of IPC –
3. Vimantal 308/2018 387 of IPC Subjudice
4. Vimantal 329/2018 387, 452, 504, 323, 506, 116, 34 of IPC Subjudice Thereafter, the following non-cognisable offences were registered: Sr.No. Police Station C.R. No. Sections
1. Yerwada 1520/2020 NC 500 IPC
2. Yerwada 1911/2020 NC 500 IPC
8. We have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Pune City, Pune and find that there is no discussion about live link between the registration of those offences and initiation of the externment proceedings against the petitioner. In the aforesaid four offences, the first offence was registered in the year 2014 and the last i.e., the fourth offence was registered in the year 2018. The impugned order of externment was passed in the year 2021. In the absence of discussion showing that there is a live link between the externment proceedings initiated by the respondent-authority and registration of the said offences, the impugned order cannot legally be sustained on the basis of registration of the said offences. The aforesaid two Non-Cognisable offences are also registered in the year 2020.
9. There is no denial to the assertion of the petitioner that on the same material, the earlier externment proceedings were initiated in the year 2019 by issuing show-cause notice on 28.5.2019 and ultimately, those proceedings were dropped.
10. Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, we find that there is no discussion that due to the fear of the petitioner, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property. The mandate of section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act can be fulfilled only by way of assigning reasons that due to the alleged activities of the externee, the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. In absence of such discussion or reasons in the impugned order, the order of externment cannot legally sustain.
11. We have carefully perused the externment order and find that there is a casual reference to the statements of alleged witnesses A and B, however, neither any date nor any specific instance has been mentioned in the impugned order. There is only a general discussion. It appears that the petitioner has been externed from Pimpri Chinchwad Commissionerate area, Pune city and Pune district. No doubt, the respondent – authority has jurisdiction to extern the proposed externee from the concerned district and adjoining districts, however, it is necessary to give reasons for such externment from the adjoining Talukas or Districts, where there is no offence registered against the proposed externee. However, in the impugned order, there is no discussion to that effect.
12. In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, after a careful perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, we have noticed that the appellate authority has mechanically endorsed the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Pune City. In that view of the matter, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of externment dated 6.1.2021 bearing No.03/2021, passed by the Respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune City, Pune, confirmed in Appeal by order dated 24/02/2021 passed by Respondent No.1 in Externment/Appeal/SR/EA_5/2021 are quashed and set aside.
13. Rule is made absolute and the Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)