Narendra Puransingh Sharma vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶1

SMITA JOHNSON Digitally signed by SMITAJOHNSON GONSALVES GONSALVES Date: 2025.01.10 00:08:50 +0530

¶2

sg

¶3

6.wp5697-24.docx

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Criminal Writ Petition No.5697 of 2024

¶6

Narendra Puransingh Sharma Adult, Indian Inhabitant, aged about 25 years, Permanent resident of Room No.09, Ekdant Apartment, Vinayak Nagar, Moregaon, Nallasopara East, Tal-Vasai, Dist. Palghar 401209

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, to be served Through Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra, through Inspector In-charge, Tulinj Police Station, To be served through Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai.

¶11

The State of Maharashtra, through Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Vasai Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate, to be served through Public Prosecutor, High Court (A.S.), Mumbai.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra, through The Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai, to be served through Public Prosecutor High Court (A.S.), Mumbai.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

Mr Satish Kumar Pandey, for the petitioner.

Page 1 of 7

9 January 2025

sg

6.wp5697-24.docx

Mr VN Sagare, APP, for the respondent/ State.

¶20

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 9 January 2025.

¶21

P.C.:

¶22

. Heard Mr Satish Kumar Pandey, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr VN Sagare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent/ State.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned externment order dated 17 May 2024 passed by respondent No.3 barring the petitioner from entering Palghar, Thane, Nashik and Mumbai Suburban districts for two years. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Externment Appeal No.93 of 2024 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai. On 18 November 2024, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with these orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶24

Mr Satish Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned orders are based on matters that are extraneous to the show cause notice and

Page 2 of 7

9 January 2025

sg 6.wp5697-24.docx

therefore, are liable to be set aside. The show cause notice does not provide reasonable grounds to extern the petitioner and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 56 of the Act as it fails to set out the material allegations against the petitioner.

¶29

The learned Counsel further argues that the externment order is excessive as it externs the petitioner from four districts for two years without any application of mind. The proposal to extern the petitioner is based on alleged crimes registered with Tulinj Police Station only.

¶30

According to the learned Counsel, there is no live link between the alleged incidents, issuance of show cause notice and the order of externment. The learned Counsel contends that the offences registered between 2016 and 2021 are now stale, and the offence registered in 2023, along with one mentioned at Sr.No.5 of the show cause notice, were under investigation.

¶31

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State has opposed the petition, citing the reasons recorded in the impugned order of externment and by the Appellate Authority.

Page 3 of 7

9 January 2025

sg

6.wp5697-24.docx

After examining the petition, its annexures, and the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities for passing the impugned orders, it is undisputed that for the offences listed at at Sr.No.2, the petitioner was not chargesheeted. Regarding the offence at Sr.No.5, the same was under investigation and thus should not be considered in the impugned order. The other offences, dating from 2016 to 2021, are now stale. Furthermore, the show cause notice does not refer to the statement of the witnesses who were unwilling to testify publicly against the petitioner. In Dnyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶37

“34. (iv) The material allegations and general nature of such allegations need to be informed in show cause notice. Only specific particulars which will fix the identity of witnesses, who are unwilling to depose in public against proposed externee are not to be made available to the proposed externee. All other particulars which can be used by proposed externee to show that the degree of satisfaction cannot be attended by the officer concerned need to be given to the proposed externee. The proposed externee has right to know all such other material as that right is a part of principles of natural justice and order involves the aforesaid fundamental rights of proposed externee.”

¶38

Additionally, it is unclear why the petitioner was externed

¶39

1 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1105.

Page 4 of 7

9 January 2025

sg 6.wp5697-24.docx

for a period of two years and from four districts when the offences were registered against the petitioner only at Tulinj Police Station. In Deepak Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.² , it was observed that:

¶44

“17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restrained order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specified period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15

¶45

2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99.

Page 5 of 7

9 January 2025

sg

6.wp5697-24.docx

December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record that subjective satisfaction of the respondent No.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under Clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”

¶51

Thus, it is clear that when the competent authority passes an order of externment for a maximum period of two years, it must demonstrate that it has applied its mind and recorded its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing the order. This satisfaction must be based on the material on record. However, in the entire externment order, I could not find any reason or indication regarding the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority. In the present case, it is unclear why the petitioner was externed for a maximum period of two years and four districts when the offences were registered against the petitioner at Tulinj Police Station only.

Page 6 of 7

9 January 2025

sg

6.wp5697-24.docx

In light of the above, the impugned order of externment dated 17 May 2024 bearing No.12/2024 passed by respondent No.3 and the appellate order dated 18 November 2024 passed by respondent No.4 in Externment Appeal No.93 of 2024 are quashed and set aside.

¶57

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶58

Page 7 of 7

¶59

9 January 2025

Narendra Puransingh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Puransingh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil Anil Madiwal vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suryakant Ramchandra Avaghade vs Deepak Eknath Dalvi and Ors.

Vishal Prakash Band vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Aamir Amanatullah Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Rajkumar Amarchand Chugh vs State of Maharashtra

Satish Baburao Patil vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.