Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1366 (BOM)

Tanvir Khan v. State of Maharashtra

2014-06-26

B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, C.V.BHADANG

body2014
JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The order dated 15.01.2014 externing the petitioner out of Nagpur city and district under Section 56(1)(A)(B) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is questioned before this Court. 2. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel has raised the following contentions, (i) First four offences looked into are still pending trial and in none of the reports/FIRs as lodged, name of the petitioner figured, (ii) There is no material on record of said cases to connect the petitioner with crime. He further states that there are total five cases at present going on against the petitioner in Nagpur district. In relation to those cases, he is required to attend court on various dates. This fact and his attendance as required is totally lost sight of in the impugned order. He draws support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Akram Ajij Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2013 All. MR. (Cri) 3999. 3. The learned APP is opposing the petition. She relies upon the reply affidavit to contend that the offences are of grave and serious nature and the order has been passed after giving full opportunity to the present petitioner. She also invites attention to reply as filed to point out that there are six crimes registered against the petitioner in which charge sheets are already filed. According to her, in this situation, as all relevant aspects have been looked into and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity, no interference is warranted. 4. The perusal of Division Bench judgment in the case of Akram Ajij Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (supra), para 10 onwards reveals that the fact of pendency of cases against the petitioner and impact of externment orders on those cases must enter application of mind of the authority which orders externment. The Division Bench has found that externment order must contain discussion indicating that the mind has been applied accordingly. In the absence of such an application of mind, the order is found to be vitiated. 5. In view of this Division Bench judgment, we do not at this stage wish to go into other contentions raised by Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the absence of such an application of mind, the order is found to be vitiated. 5. In view of this Division Bench judgment, we do not at this stage wish to go into other contentions raised by Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Only to enable the Competent Authority to consider the impact of externment order on pending prosecutions, we set aside the order dated 15.01.2014. The said authority shall apply its mind afresh in this respect and pass suitable orders at the earliest. The petitioner to appear before that authority on 14.07.2014. The authority shall thereafter pass fresh orders within a period of next four weeks. Leaving other contentions open and with the above directions, we partly allow the present criminal writ petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.