This court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging an externment order. The court held that the reasons given by the appellate authority for the petitioner's exclusion were in consonance with the collected material and were not vitiated by minor inaccuracies regarding police stations.
The writ petition stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 71-crwp317.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2016
Kunal s/o. Subhash Raut
..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and anr.
..Respondents
Mr.Mohsin Khan, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, A.P.P for respondents
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 20, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. appearing
for the respondents. With their able assistance,
perused the pleadings in the petition, the ground
taken therein, annexures, the order dated
25.11.2014 passed by respondent no.1 so also the
order dated 05.11.2015 passed by respondent no.2 –
the appellate authority. We have also perused the
reply filed on behalf of the respondents.
2 71-crwp317.odt
2.According to the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, out the five offences mentioned in the
show-cause notice, Crime No.3026 of 2011
registered with Chawni Police Station, Aurangabad,
is under the political influence and in the Crime
No.359 of 2015 registered with Kranti Chowk Police
Station, Aurangabad, “B” Summary report has been
filed by the police. He submits that in Crime
No.59 of 2014 registered with Chawni Police
Station, Aurangabad, the name of the petitioner is
not mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits
that there is no proper application of mind by the
respondents/authoritieswhilepassingthe
externment order against the petitioner. Though
the offences are not registered in the City Chowk
Police Station, Aurangabad, respondent no.2 – the
appellate authority observed that offences have
been registered against the petitioner in Chawni
Police Station, Aurangabad and even in Amravati
Police Station. He submits that the impugned order
3 71-crwp317.odt
is excessive inasmuch as all the offences
registered against the petitioner are only in
Chawni Police Station and Kranti Chowk Police
Station. He, therefore, submits that the petition
may be allowed.
3.The learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondents submits that the amended provisions of
Sections 56 and 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act
have met with in the present case. The witnesses
are not coming forward to depose against the
petitioner. The in-camera statements of the three
witnesses have been considered by the respondents/
authorities. It is mentioned in the show-cause
notice that the three witnesses have stated that
people are afraid of deposing against the
petitioner. The dates and time recorded by the
said witnesses have been mentioned in the show-
cause notice. He, therefore, submits that the
petition may be rejected.
4 71-crwp317.odt
4.Upon careful perusal of the documents
placed on record and in particular, the copy of
the show-cause notice, it is mentioned that in the
in-camera statements of the three witnesses, they
have stated that due to the fear, the witnesses
are not coming forward to depose against the
petitioner. Apart from it, the alleged activities
of the petitioner also have been mentioned. The
petitioner has been externed only to the limit of
the Aurangabad district since the offences are
registered with Chawni Police Station and Kranti
Chowk Police Station. Therefore, if the reasons
assigned in the impugned order of externment are
considered in their entirety, the view taken by
respondent no.2 appears to be in consonance with
the material collected by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police. It is true that the respondents are
unable to point out the offences registered
against the petitioner either in City Chowk Police
Station, Aurangabad and in Amravati Police
5 71-crwp317.odt
Station, however, the observations recorded by
respondent no.2 - the appellate authority would
not vitiate the impugned order passed by it.
5.In the light of the reasons stated
hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain the
claims made by the petitioner in this Writ
Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands
rejected.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain claims against the impugned externment order.
Whether the reasons assigned for externment vitiate the order since some alleged offences were registered in different police stations.
Kunal s/o. Subhash Raut
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court