Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Suleman – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of filing the instant Writ Petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 31-03-2021 passed by the Court of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur West in Criminal Case No.37/2019, whereby the petitioner has been directed to extern from the area of Police Commissioner, Jodhpur and so also directed that for a period of one month he shall mark his weekly attendance in the office of Superintendent of Police, Barmer and that he won't enter in Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur without permission of the competent authority.
2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the order under assail dated 31-03-2021 and the other material annexed with the petition.
3. The sum and substance of the case is that a complaint came to be filed on behalf of the SHO, Police Station, Udaimandir, before the DCP Jodhpur on dated 05-11-2019 seeking initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act 1975 (herein after referred as ‘Goondas Act’). The learned DCP made observance of a single fact that the petitioner was convicted on two occasions for committing offence under the penal provisions of Gambling Ordinance. As per the
An externment order under the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act requires evidence of causing alarm or harm and witness intimidation, not merely prior convictions.
The court emphasized that administrative orders must be supported by adequate reasoning, and failure to demonstrate habitual offending renders such orders unsustainable.
The classification of an individual as a 'goonda' requires substantial evidence of habitual criminal behavior, not merely vague allegations or police reports.
The court held that the respondent failed to consider the most relevant consideration, namely, whether the petitioner had committed the alleged offenses within the six-month period specified in the e....
The court established that a single incident does not suffice to classify an individual as a 'Goonda' under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, necessitating evidence of habitual offending.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
