1

43-wp-646-21j.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 646 OF 2021

Rohit Manoj Verma,

Aged 28 years, Occ. Property Dealer,

R/o. House No. 682, Nayapura,

Premnagar, Zenda Chowk,

Nagpur 440002

. . . PETITIONER

...V E R S U S..

1.The State of Maharashtra through

its Secretary, Home Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,

Zone No. 3, Nagpur.

. . . RESPONDENTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri Mir Rizwan Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri V. A. Thakre, A.P.P. for respondents/State.

CORAM:- M. S. SONAK AND

PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATED:- 25.10.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. SONAK, J.):-

1.

Heard Shri Mir Rizwan Ali, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Shri V. A. Thakre learned A.P.P. for State.

2.

Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request

of and consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2

43-wp-646-21j.odt

3.

The challenge in this petition is to the externment order

no. 4/2021, dated 15.02.2021 made by respondent no. 2 herein

invoking the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra

Police Act, 1951 (the said Act).

4.

The record indicates that against the impugned order, the

petitioner instituted an appeal but, the appeal came to be rejected by

the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2021.

5.

The impugned order refers to the following 7 cases

registered against the petitioner and then proceeds to state that on

account of these 7 cases, the Externing Authority is satisfied that there

are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is engaged in

the commission of offenses involving force or violence or offenses

under Chapter 12, 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. The

externment order also contains a statement that witnesses are not

willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the

petitioner for the reason or apprehension on their part for the safety of

their person or property.

Sr.

No.

Police Station

Crime No./Section

Date

Court Case No.

Result

1. Shantinagar

125/2017, Sections

452, 323, 294, 506B, 34

of IPC

04.10.2017

4039/2017, Dtd.

06.11.2017

Subjudice

2. Shantinagar

3035/2018, Sections

160 of IPC

23.04.2018

15847/2018,

Dtd. 10.07.2018

Subjudice

3. Shantinagar

111/2019, Sections 12

of Gambling Act

22.03.2019

20210/2019,

Dtd. 02.08.2019

Subjudice

3

43-wp-646-21j.odt

4. Shantinagar

324/2019, Section 12

of Gambling Act

31.08.2019

26055/2019,

Dtd. 16.10.2019

Subjudice

5. Shantinagar

401/2019, Section

65(e) of Prohibition Act

19.10.2019

4056/2020, Dtd.

25.02.2020

Subjudice

6. Shantinagar

406/2019, Sections

324, 323, 34 of IPC

27.10.2019

733/2020, Dtd.

28.02.2020

Subjudice

7. Shantinagar

400/2020, Sections

294, 506, 323, 427, 34

of IPC

03.09.2020

--

Under

Investigatio

n

6.

From the instances referred to above, it is apparent that

instance nos. 3 to 5 concern offenses under Prohibition Act and

Gambling Act. There are no allegations that such offenses involved

any force or violence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, prima

facie, such offenses ought not to have been taken into account for

reaching substantive satisfaction necessary to issue impugned

externment order. Besides, even these are the instances relating to the

year 2019, while the impugned order has been made only on

15.02.2021. The nexus or the live link between these instances and the

impugned order has not been satisfactorily explained either in the

impugned externment order or in the affidavit filed in defense of the

same.

7.

Similarly, we find that the first two instances relate to the

cases registered against the petitioner on 04.10.2017 and 23.04.2018.

Again, there is nothing in the impugned externment order or in the

affidavit filed in defense of the same to establish any live link between

these instances and the substantive satisfaction reached for making the

4

43-wp-646-21j.odt

impugned