1 WP 1588.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1588 OF 2011 Mr. Ramesh Pratap Salve. ... Petitioner. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-V, Thane & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 04th OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard finally. 2. The Petitioner questions the order of externment recorded by Respondent No.1 confirmed by the Appellate Authority externing him from four Districts Thane, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Raigad for a period of one year. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order under challenge is excessive in its nature as the alleged 3/4 cases against the Petitioner could be confined to the area of Thane and particularly, Kopri Police Station. Even if the interlink between Thane and Mumbai is considered and concession is to be extended to the parties, however, there 2 WP 1588.11.sxw could not have been incorporation of District Raigad from where the Petitioner was externed. In order to consider this fact, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance to the Judgment in the matter of Silva @ Gora Silva Ayanar Arjun V/s. Nawal Bajaj, Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. (2007) All MR (Cri.) 84 and also to the Judgment in the matter of Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Police (2005) All MR (Cri) 2717. 4. In both the Judgments, this Court has recorded that there cannot be any dispute for considering the facts of the circumstances of particular case. The order of externment need not be restricted to the area in which illegal activities of the externee are carried on. A larger area may always form part of externment order. In a case where activities are confined to particular district and geographically contiguous district is shown to be intimately connected to the said District, the order may extend to both districts. Mere geographical proximity is no ground to extend the order of externment to another district in which there are no objectionable activities by the externee. 5. This Court also considered the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra (1973) AIR (1) S.C.C. 630. 3 WP 1588.11.sxw 6. I have also gone through the two in-camera statements of which reference is given in the notice served upon the Petitioner and also in the order. The statements are indeed innocuous in its character, it loudly informs certain extortion threats carried by the Petitioner to the witness. However, no prosecution for such extortion threat has ever been surfaced against the Petitioner. The two cases at Kopri Police Station to which reference was given, arise out of infraction of Section 147, 149,324, 307 of I.P.C. In Crime No.25 of 2006, for an offence under Section 306 r/w. 34 of I.P.C., the Petitioner has been acquitted. Considering these aspects and even otherwise, the exterment period is nearing lapsing, I find that the order of externment recorded by authority is excessive. It has restricted the activities of the Applicant beyond Thane, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai to Raigad. The authorities had no material to extern the Petitioner from the area of Raigad District. The order is accordingly set aside. The Petition allowed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)