Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
Tinu Harish Biste - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Dy. Commissioner of Police and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2624 of 2024
Decided On : 11-11-2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Externment Orders
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.19(1)(d)
Headnote
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ghansham Jadhav i/b. Mr. Monty Teckchandani.
For the Respondents: Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP, Mr. B. R. Darade, PSI, Ambernath Police Station.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for externment orders (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. necessity for justification in externment decisions (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. implications of the externment orders and the court's final ruling (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, heard finally.
3) This Petition seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned Order dated 5th January, 2024 passed by Respondent No.1 invoking the provisions of Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (‘the Act’ for short), thereby the Petitioner has been externed for a period of o2 years from the limits of districts Thane, Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburbs, Raigad, Karjat as well as Panvel Taluka, and Order dated 12th April, 2024 passed by Respondent No.2 thereby dismissing Externment Appeal No.10/2024 filed by Petitioner, assailing ‘Order of Externment’.
4) The facts giving rise to this Petition are that, in view of the report of enquiry received from Enquiry Officer-Assistant Commissioner Of Police, Ambernath Division thereby recommending to extern the Petitioner, a notice dated 6th December, 2023 was issued by Respondent No.1, under Section 59 of the Act thereby Petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed as stated in the said notice. In this regard, the Respondent No.1 noted that, certain cognizable and non-cognizable crimes have been committed by the Petitioner in the recent past. Its details are as under:-
| Sr. No. | Police Station | C.R. No. | Sections | Court Case No. | Present Status |
| 1 | Ambernath | 673/2022 | Under Sections 324, 323, 427, 506(2), 34 of IPC. | 644/2023 | Subjudice |
| 2 | Ambernath | 428/2023 | Under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 336, 427, 143,144, 147,148,149 of IPC. | Under Investigation |
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Non-Cognizable Offence Registration No. and Section | Date |
| 1 | Ambernath | N.C. R.No.1680/2023 Under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. | 22/07/2023 |
4.1) In addition, statement of two confidential witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ were also referred. Said statements revealed that, the Petitioner along with his associates carry iron rods, wooden logs and involved in criminal acts like causing hurt, threat and abuse to people residing in the locality of the Petitioner, and extort money from cart vendors, scrap vendors etc. Said acts of the Petitioner created terror in the locality and people do not come forward to lodge report against him, due to fear of their life. Further, witness ‘A’ disclosed that, one day in the 1st week of August 2023, at about 10:45 hours, near Banjara locality, the Petitioner and his associates abused and threatened the witness ‘A’ and robbed him of Rs.1,720/- at a knife point. The witness ‘B’ revealed that, one day in the 2nd week of September 2023, while he was walking on MHADA Colony Road, the Petitioner and his two associates obstructed and threatened him and robbed of Rs.480/- at a knife point. However, said witnesses did not lodge a report due to terror of the Petitioner.
4.2) The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. After considering the said crimes, statement of the witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’, advice of the Enquiry Officer and the reply of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 passed the subject ‘Order of Externment’. The Petitioner challenged the ‘Order of Externment’ in Externment Appeal No.10/2024, however, was unsuccessful. Hence, this Petition.
5) Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, only two cognizable offences have been considered to pass the Order of Externment’. Said alleged crimes were committed against an individual and not against public at large. The in-camera statement of the witnesses were not verified. There is no live-link between the 1st crime and the ‘Order of Externment’. An individual cannot be externed only on the basis of a sole crime. Lastly, he submits that, the impugned ‘Order of Externment’ is excessive as the Petitioner has been externed from several areas than necessary and for a co
