LI Network
Published on: January 25, 2024 at 11:30 IST
In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice NJ Jamadar, has declared that allegations currently under investigation, and lacking a filed chargesheet, cannot serve as a basis for the issuance of an externment order against the accused.
The ruling came as Justice Jamadar nullified an externment order against Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad, highlighting that the authority responsible for the externment considered two crimes without awaiting the filing of chargesheets.
The order in question, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone XII, Mumbai, and partially upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, faced scrutiny from the petitioner, challenging its validity under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
The petitioner, who faced seven registered crimes under various sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, Arms Act, and Maharashtra Police Act at Samta Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, received a show cause notice on July 9, 2022. The notice alleged that the petitioner’s actions posed a threat to persons or property, citing confidential statements expressing fear from witnesses.
The externing authority directed the accused to leave districts including Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Vasai, Palghar, Dahanu Taluka of Palghar District, and Panvel, Karjat Taluka of Raigad District, for two years. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, later reduced the externment period to 18 months. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the high court, leading to the recent ruling.
The Bombay High Court emphasized that an externment order must strictly adhere to statutory provisions. It noted that two of the seven crimes considered did not fall within the scope of the relevant statutory section, which requires offenses under specific chapters of the IPC.
The Court observed a lack of a direct connection between the crimes and the externment order, questioning the relevance of cases with a significant time lapse between their registration and the initiation of externment proceedings.
Highlighting the ongoing investigation status of two crimes at the time of the externment order, the court underscored the non-application of mind by the externing authority. Additionally, the court pointed out the absence of reasons provided by the authority for imposing the maximum two-year externment period.
In conclusion, the Court ruled that the externment order lacked proper consideration and, as a result, quashed the order.