The state has the power to pass an Externment order or a direction barring certain people entry to the specified area should be exercised only in “Exceptional cases”: Bombay High Court
The Externment proceedings initiated against any person should necessary to scrupulously follow the procedure as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court before the Hon’ble S. S. Shinde & N.J. Jamadar, JJ in the matters of Shri Arshad Sahil Khan v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No.2603 of 2021].
The facts of the case related to the Criminal writ petitioner wherein the respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and specific materials against the petitioner is not proven in the notice due to lack of evidence, on this count the notice is legally unsustainable. Petitioner submitted that there is no live link between the alleged commission of offenses and passing of Externment order by the Respondent authority. No such material evidence against the Petitioner and the Externment order passed by the respondent authority is unsustainable in law and the Appeal needs to be quashed.
Eventually, it was figured out numerous Offences are registered against the petitioner by different persons. It is proven that petitioners have a habit of assaulting common citizens by using sharp weapons residing in the same territory. Additional petitioner was involved in the Extortion of money from citizens. In the camera statement of witnesses ‘A’ and ‘B’ were recorded by the Police officer. The statement prescribed by the witness demonstrates all the activities of the petitioner. With the assistance of learned counsel of the state with the proven pleadings and grounds concerning the Externment proceeding initiated against the petitioner.
The offense mentioned in the show-cause notice is true and punishable under Section 392, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The Externing authority has not specifically recorded the findings that the witness is unwilling to come forward in public to give evidence against the petitioner because of apprehension to the safety of the witness, persona, and property. Under Section 56 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, it is necessary to record specific findings that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward in public to give evidence against the petitioner so the Externment order is not legally sustained.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that Externment order is not legally sustainable then the person is externed then the fundamental right to stay at the place of his choice or to move from one place to another will not be curtailed. “The impugned order of externment cannot be legally sustained and the writ petition is allowed”.
Judgment Reviewed by – Kaviya.S