: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2006 Sameer @ Banti Gulab Patel ...Petitioner V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-VII, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. Shri V.V.Gangurde, adv. for the Petitioner. Shri D.S.Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: R.S.Mohite, J. CORAM: R.S.Mohite, J. CORAM: R.S.Mohite, J. DATE : 24th January, 2006. DATE : 24th January, 2006. DATE : 24th January, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This is a petition challenging the externment of the Petitioner by the order dated 27.04.05 which has been confirmed by the State in Appeal vide order dated 29.08.2005. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is seen that the same is based on cogent reasons. There are three crimes registered against the accused persons, first being Crime No.13 of 2003 for the offences punishable under section 341, 354 and 506(II), second being Crime No.48 of 2003 registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under section 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.217 of 2004 for the offences punishable under section 363, 366, 452, 323, 344 and 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There are also three in-camera statements which were relied upon. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that inspite of : 2 : the matter being adjourned, no defence material is forthcoming. Only argument was raised that in-camera statements were vague. On perusal of the in-camera statements, sufficient details are given. 3. In the circumstances, no substance is found in the Petition and hence, the petition is rejected. (R.S.Mohite, J.) (R.S.Mohite, J.) (R.S.Mohite, J.)