Allowed

Amir Murad Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Sept 2021WP/2411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged the maintenances of orders directing his externment from Suburban Mumbai and Mumbai City. The High Court quashed the orders, holding that the petitioner was not a member of a gang and the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction, impermissibly failing to consider the narrow scope of the pending criminal case.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 28.01.2021 of the Divisional Commissioner and 11.11.2020 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Amir Murad Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

¶2

1 / 8

¶3

Digitally signed 1 / 8 by BHAGYAWANT BHAGYAWANT TATYARAO TATYARAO PUNDE PUNDE Date: 2021.09.2215:33:01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY +0530 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2411 OF 2021

¶5

Mr. Amir Murad Sayyed Age- 31 years, Occ- Business, Residing at: Meena Tangewali Chawl, Kajwadi, Near Beat no. 4, Samsudin Marg, Mumbai-400 099. ... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Andheri Police Station.

¶8

... RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr. Madan J. Gupta for Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for State.

¶10

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

¶11

RESERVED ON : 20^th SEPTEMBER, 2021. PRONOUNCED ON: 22^nd SEPTEMBER, 2021.

¶12

JUDGMENT: [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the

¶14

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶15

This petition is fled for the following substantive prayer:-

¶16

a) This Hon’ble Court be please quash and set-aside order dated 28/01/2021 of Divisional Kokan Commissioner Division and order of Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-X order dated 11/11/2020 in 14/C/43/2020 in the interest of justice.

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

2 / 8

It is the case of the petitioner that the Senior Police Inspector of Andheri Police Station has proposed Chapter Proceeding bearing no. 03/2020 under Section 110(e) (g) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the present petitioner and accordingly order dated 22/01/2021 was passed by the learned Special Executive Magistrate, Andheri. The Senior Police Inspector of Police, Andheri Police Station has proposed externment against the petitioner, and therefore, the proposal has been made to the Deputy Police Commissioner Zone-X, Mumbai, and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18/08/2020. As per the prosecution case, only one case is pending against the petitioner and that case is registered by the Andheri Police Station bearing C.R. No. 716 of 2019, dated 18/11/2019. The Deputy Commissioner Zone-X, Mumbai has sent the show cause notice dated 18/08/2019 through Andheri Police Station asking to appear the petitioner before him with his advocate, and accordingly, the petitioner has appeared through his advocate. The Deputy Commissioner Zone-X, Mumbai after considering the statement of witnesses recorded incamera passed the impugned order of externment. Thereafter, petitioner has preferred appeal against the said order before Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. On 28/01/2021, the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division has rejected the appeal

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

3 / 8

fled by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated

¶25

28/01/2021 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division has rejected the appeal of the petitioner without applying his mind. The petitioner has been externed for the one offence registered by Andheri Police Station bearing C.R. No. 716/2019, dated 18/11/2019 and apart from said offence no offence is registered against the petitioner and the said offence is still pending and chargehsheet has been fled, which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri. The Sessions Court has granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 15/01/2020 and has also considered the fact that there is previous dispute with each other and offence is exaggerated by the complainant. It is submitted that after initiation of chapter proceedings, the petitioner has never breached any condition of chapter proceedings bond. The Petitioner was working in Youth Congress and due to political enmity proceeding is initiated and order has been passed against the petitioner. The Petitioner was working in Police Mohala Committee since year 2009 and in the year 2011, Mumbai Police felicitated him with the certifcate for his

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

4 / 8

social work. It is further submitted that in the show cause notice also it is not mentioned that the witnesses or victims are not coming forward to lodge complaint against the petitioner.

¶31

It is further submitted that the petitioner has been externed from Suburban Mumbai and Mumbai City for a period of one year, but no reason has been given why the petitioner has been externed from the Mumbai City. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-X has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the order of externment. It is submitted that the order of externment is not passed on merits and same is not maintainable in law. There is no case pending against the petitioner in Mumbai City, therefore, Deputy Commissioner of Police has exceeded his jurisdiction. The petitioner is not part of any group or gang nor he has threatened any person staying in the vicinity. Due to externment of the petitioner for one year from Suburban Mumbai and Mumbai City grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is submitted that Divisional Commissioner Konkan , without asssigning any grounds on merits has rejected the appeal of the petitioner bearing Appeal No. 70 of 2020 vide order dated 28/01/2021. He has also failed to consider that the petitioner is not part of any group or gang.

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

5 / 8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has an old mother and he has to take care of her, as his mother is dependent upon him and if the externment is set aside then no harm or prejudice will be caused to any person or society.

¶36

Ms. Mhatre, the learned APP appearing for State submitted that both the authorities have rightly passed the orders thereby externinig the petitioner from Suburban Mumbai and Mumbai City. It is submitted that the petitioner is a member of gang and involved in the alleged offences. Therefore, she prays that petition may be dismissed.

¶37

We have given careful consideration to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State. With their able assistance we have perused pleadings and grounds taken in the petitioner, annexures thereto and the reasons assigned in the impugned orders. It appears from the careful perusal of offences registered against the persons whose names are mentioned in the impugned order that only one offence i.e. C.R. No. 716/2019 registered with Andheri Police Station, is registered against them. Upon careful perusal of allegations in the FIR, it appears that the said incident had taken place at lodge/hotel. There is no other crime which would indicate that the gang was formed by the

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

6 / 8

accused. There appears to be previous enmity which gave rise to the commission of said alleged offences. For the said offence, already chapter proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner under the Cr.P.C. and even in said chapter proceedings bond of good behaviour was also taken from the petitioner. In the said alleged offence chargesheet is already fled, and law will take its own course and accused including the petitioner herein will be tried. It appears that in-camera statement of witness ‘A’ has been recorded on 10/02/2020, for the alleged offence which had taken place in the month of October-2019. It further appears that statement of witness ‘B’ is recorded in-camera on 18/02/2020 for the alleged offence which had taken place in the month of October-2019.

¶42

It further appears that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18/08/2020 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, however, the order of externment has been passed on 01/11/2020. The other offences which are relied upon by the externining authority while passing the order of externment against co-accused appear to be stale. In the impugned order it is not discussed that how the said stale offences have live link/nexus with the externment proceedings.

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

7 / 8

It appears from the order passed by the Sessions Court

¶47

in Criminal Bail Application No. 1532 of 2019 that the present petitioner has been released on bail.

¶48

Upon considering the entire material placed on record, it

¶49

is diffcult to hold that the petitioner was working as a member of a gang. In the facts of the present case, we do not think that the ingredients of section 55 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶50

In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. Hence, the following

¶51

order:-

¶52

ORDER

¶53

1. The writ petition is allowed.

¶54

The orders dated 28.01.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and order dated 11/11/2020 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police bearing no. 14/C/43/2020, are quashed and set aside.

¶55

Rule is made absolute to above extent.

¶56

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Bhagyawant Punde

WP-2411-2021 (J).doc

8 / 8

Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶61

( N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶62

(S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶63

Bhagyawant Punde

Amir Murad Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Murad Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyawan Pandurang Thale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pushkar Prafulla Shukla and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kesarbai Ranjit Bhat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ankit S/O Umakant Sharma(Petitioners Brother Amit S/O Umakant Sharma) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gargi Arun Chakravarty Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yuvraj Dhondu Bhadane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.