4360, submitted that the material is not sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the petitioner is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted. Reliance on the judgment is also placed to buttress the submission that there is no live link of temporal proximity between the conviction and the justification for externment. In this case, the Division Bench of this Court has held that both the requirements of Section 57(1)(a)(i) are essential. It is not enough that only one requirement is met. It is held that there must be some live link of temporal proximity between the conviction and the justification for externment. In the case before the Division Bench, the conviction was of the year 2008. The order of externment was passed in 2013. The cases of 2011 and 2012, in which the petitioner was acquitted, had been relied upon to form the basis of satisfaction to pass the externment order. In my view, on facts, this decision is not applicable. In the case on hand, the conviction order was dated 04.11.2020. The two crimes had been committed in 2023. One crime was committed in 2022. It is, therefore, apparent that there is live link between the conviction in the first crime and commission of three subsequent crimes. It is also evident from the record that more than one preventive action had been initiated against the petitioner.
