R.K. Deshpande, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 9-6-2017 passed by the respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Nagpur City, Nagpur, externing the petitioner from the area of Nagpur City for a period of two years in exercise of her power under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 on the grounds (i) that the movements or the activities of the petitioner are causing alarm, danger or harm to the person and property of the residents in the locality under Pratapnagar Police Station, (ii) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), and (iii) that in the opinion of the externing authority, the 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 or property. The order makes a reference to five cases registered against the petitioner at Pratapnagar Police Station in respect of the offences covered by Chapters VIII, XVI and XVII of IPC.

2. The grounds of challenges to the order impugned, as are urged by Shri Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, are (i) that the activities or the offences alleged against the petitioner are confined or restricted to the local limits of the jurisdiction of Pratapnagar Police Station and the order to the extent of externing the petitioner from the entire city of Nagpur is excessive and without jurisdiction, and (ii) that the in camera statements said to have been recorded and referred to in the show cause notice as well as in the order impugned fail to give the details of such statements, including the names of the witnesses, the dates of incidents, the contents of such statements, the copies thereof, etc., and as such there is a failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to make an effective representation.

3. Shri Vyas for the petitioners relies upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Pappu @ Akhilesh Shivshankar Mishra v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1, and Ravi s/o Raju Bhalerao v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 4646, for the proposition that there is no evidence on record to suggest that a larger or additional area covered by an order of externment is intimately connected to the area of Pratapnagar Police Station due to improved or common means of transport and communication system and that there exists no material to justify the externment beyond the local limits of Pratapnagar Police Station. He also relies upon the Division Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of (1) Sanjay s/o Balasaheb Ruptakke v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 3983, and (2) Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir v. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 4303, and also the decision of the another Division Bench in the case of Pankaj Prakash Shimpi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, ZoneII, Nashik City, & Ors., delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.2742 of 2016 at the Principal Seat of this Court at Mumbai, to urge that mere passing reference to the in-camera statements is not enough, but the details are required to be furnished in the show cause notice as to what was stated by the witnesses, the gist of their version, and the allegations made against the petitioner.

4. Shri Pathan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of – (1) Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay and another, reported in AIR 1952 SC 221; (2) Bhagubhai Dullabhbhai Bhandari v. District Magistrate, Thana and others, reported in AIR 1956 SC 585; (3) Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, the State of Maharashtra, reported in (1973)