Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 889 (BOM)

Atul Raosaheb Datrange v. State Of Maharashtra

2022-03-25

SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE, V.K.JADHAV

body2022
JUDGMENT Sandipkumar C. More, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner has fled this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.08.2021, passed by Respondent No.2 District Superintendent of Police, ahmednagar, in Externment Proceeding No. 55 of 2021 and also the order dated 18.10.2021 in Externment appeal No. 88/2021, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. Under the aforesaid orders, both the authorities have externed the present petitioner from the area of entire ahmednagar district for the period of two years. 3 Background facts of the present case are as under: The petitioner is resident of Tangegalli, Nalegaon, ahmednagar. He is an agriculturist by profession. Respondent No.3 - Kotwali Police Station, ahmednagar, has submitted proposal against the petitioner and other members of his gang, before the Externment Offcer under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951 (herein after referred to as 'the said act'), from 5 districts namely ahmednagar, aurangabad, Beed, Pune and Nashik, for the period of two years. accordingly, on 18.12.2020, a notice under Section 59 of the said act was served upon the petitioner and other members of his gang. The petitioner replied the said notice. However, Respondent No.2, on 06.08.2021, passed an order of externment against the petitioner and other members of his gang in Externment Proceeding No. 55 of 2021, as mentioned above. The petitioner has challenged the said order by fling an appeal bearing Externment appeal No. 88 of 2021 under Section 60 of the said act before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. However, the said appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2021, by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by way of fling instant writ petition. 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders are illegal, perverse, arbitrary and passed without considering the documents on record. He further submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and also has not been convicted in any crime mentioned in the proposal. On the contrary, the petitioner is acquitted in certain cases, including RCC No. 382/2017 arising out of Crime No. 139/2017, registered with Kotwali Police Station, ahmednagar. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not at all connected with any organization/group or gang. On the contrary, the petitioner is acquitted in certain cases, including RCC No. 382/2017 arising out of Crime No. 139/2017, registered with Kotwali Police Station, ahmednagar. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not at all connected with any organization/group or gang. as such, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned orders. 5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgments: (i) In the case of Dipak Sudhakar Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 aLL MR (Cri) 1869; (ii) In the case of Mohan s/o Damodar Raut & another Vs. The Superintendent of Police & others, 2021 aLL MR (Cri) 1445; and (iii) Rohit Manoj Verma Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 1983; (iv) Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra, LaWS (SC)-2022-1-87. 6 On the contrary, on the basis of the affdavit-in-reply fled on behalf of Respondent No.2, the learned a. P. P. has strongly opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders. The learned a. P. P. has also produced before us the record of the case. The learned a. P. P. submits that there is is suffcient material against the petitioner and as such prays for dismissal of the petition. 7 admittedly, the Police Inspector of Kotwali Police Station, ahmednagar, had sent a proposal for externment of the petitioner along with other members of his gang. The order passed by the Respondent No.2 indicates the crimes registered against the petitioner and members of his gang, which are as follows: Sr. No. Name of Police Station, Crime No. & Sections Court Case No Position 1 Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 4299/2020 Sections 336, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC SCC 5492/2020 Pending 2 Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 567/2019 Section 188 of IPC SCC 5244/2019 Pending 3 Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 801/2019 Section 379 of IPC SCC 91/2020 Pending 4 Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 139/2017 Sections 395, 324, 403, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. Section 4/25 of arms act and Section 37(1) (3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police act RCC 382/2017 acquittal 5 Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 397/2016 Sections 326, 325, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 506, 427 of IPC. Section 4/25 of arms act and Section 37(1)(3) , 135 of the Maharashtra Police act. Section 4/25 of arms act and Section 37(1) (3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police act RCC 382/2017 acquittal 5 Kotwali Police Station Crime No. 397/2016 Sections 326, 325, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 506, 427 of IPC. Section 4/25 of arms act and Section 37(1)(3) , 135 of the Maharashtra Police act. RCC 246/2017 Pending 8 It appears that both the authorities have externed the petitioner by observing that he is a gang leader of the gang of persons and said gang is involved in various criminal activities disturbing the peace and law and order. It is evident that the impugned orders are passed under Section 55 of the said act, which reads as under: 55. Dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons: Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and in other areas in which a Commissioner is appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in a district to the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Superintendent empowered by the State Government in that behalf, that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by members thereof, such offcer may, by notifcation addressed to the persons appearing to be the leaders or chief men of such gang or body and published by beat of drum or otherwise as such offcer thinks ft, direct the members of such gang or body so to conduct themselves as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or disperse and each of them to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto within such time as such offcer shall prescribe, and not to enter to area for the areas and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be, or return to the place from which each of them was directed to remove himself. 9 On perusal of Section 55 of the said act, it appears that the said Section provides effcacious remedy for dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons whose presence is dangerous to the public at large. 9 On perusal of Section 55 of the said act, it appears that the said Section provides effcacious remedy for dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons whose presence is dangerous to the public at large. The requirement of Section 55 is that there should be material against the petitioner which makes out the case against him as a leader or chief men of a gang or body of persons and his criminal activities should not be individualistic in nature than collective. In the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioner is claiming that the present petitioner is not involved in any criminal acts of a gang but the authorities have still externed him without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. However, on going through the crimes mentioned in the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner is involved in serious crimes under Sections 336, 323, 188, 379, 395, 324, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 4/25 of the Indian arms act. It is evident that all the aforesaid crimes have taken place between the period from 2016 to 2020. Thus, it is clear that since 2016, the petitioner has indulged in criminal activities along with other members of his gang. Further, there are also statements of confdential witnesses, since nobody is openly willing to come forward to make accusation against the petitioner. The statements of the witnesses, as mentioned in the externment order, clearly indicate that the petitioner, along with members of his gang, snatched valuable amounts from the witnesses by putting them under fear of death with the help of dangerous weapons, such as choppers. Moreover, the impugned orders also reflect that suffcient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and his defence was also considered while passing the impugned orders. It appears that the present petitioner was found indulged in serious crimes including dacoity, offences relating to human body and formation of an unlawful assembly by possessing dangerous weapons. 10 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner and members of his gang have been acquitted from RCC No. 382/2017, arising out of Crime No. 139/2017. He also produced judgment in the said case for our perusal. 10 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner and members of his gang have been acquitted from RCC No. 382/2017, arising out of Crime No. 139/2017. He also produced judgment in the said case for our perusal. However, on going through the said judgment, it appears that the petitioner and his associates are acquitted since the complainant and prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case. It is further apparent that though the petitioner somehow got acquitted in the said case, which is of the year 2017, however, the petitioner has again indulged in serious criminal activities thereafter also till the year 2020. as such, it can be seen that despite committing offence in the year 2017, the petitioner did not stop there and continued his criminal activities by forming a gang. 11 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments as mentioned above. In the judgment in the case of Dipak Sudhakar Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 aLL MR (Cri) 1869, it is held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since the show cause notice was issued in the year 2018 and the externment order was passed in 2020 belatedly and there was no offence registered against the petitioner since 2012 and further, that the impugned order based on a single stale case is not sustainable. However, such is not the case in the instant matter. There were continuous criminal activities of the petitioner and members of his gang since 2017 up to 2020. Further, in the judgment In the case of Mohan s/o Damodar Raut & another Vs. The Superintendent of Police & others, 2021 aLL MR (Cri) 1445, this Court has observed that the danger or alarm likely to be caused by gang of criminals can only be towards society at large to attract the provisions of Section 55 of the said act. If such danger or alarm is found against one or two persons or family of persons, then no externment order can be passed under Section 55 of the said act. However, in the instant matter, it appears that the crimes registered against the petitioner defnitely involve criminal activities against the public at large and not against any individual. Therefore, aforesaid observations are not helpful to the petitioner herein. However, in the instant matter, it appears that the crimes registered against the petitioner defnitely involve criminal activities against the public at large and not against any individual. Therefore, aforesaid observations are not helpful to the petitioner herein. The next two judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. Rohit Manoj Verma Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 1983; passed by this Court and Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra, LaWS (SC)-2022-1-87, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, deals with externment order passed under Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the said act. However, the externment order, in the instant matter, is under Section 55 of the said act. 12 On perusal of both the impugned orders in the instant matter, it defnitely appears that the petitioner is involved in serious crimes along with members of his gang, which is suffcient to deter the common people and to disturb the law and order. Moreover, there is live-link between the last crime committed by the petitioner and members of his gang and the proposal sent for externment. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that say of the petitioner has also been considered before passing the impugned orders and as such, suffcient opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioner. There appears subjective satisfaction on the part of both the authorities in respect of material placed on record against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that both the authorities have properly appreciated the material on record and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is involved in various serious criminal activities along with members of his gang and, therefore, passed the impugned orders. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. 13 Hence, we pass the following order: (i) Criminal Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. (ii) Rule stands discharged.