-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. 1851 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1851 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1851 OF 2007 Ganesh M.Arunachalam Naidu .... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and anr...... Respondent. Mr. Parvez Ubhary & Osman Chistyy for the petitioner. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. A show cause notice came to be issued to the present petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and after affording an opportunity of hearing, order of externment came to be passed on 17-4-2007 externing the petitioner from the areas of Bombay, Greater Bombay, New Bombay and Thane District for a period of one year. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority. The appellate authority considering the fact that there are 13 cases pending against the present petitioner, under various sections including an offence under section 302 of IPC, has concurred with the view taken by the first authority and dismissed the appeal, aggrieved thereby the present criminal Writ Petition -2- has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been acquitted in the case under section 302 IPC and the other cases pertains to the period prior to the year 2002. Hence the action of externment is unsustainable in law. 3. The respondent has filed an affidavit in reply wherein list of 13 cases purportedly pending against the petitioner has been shown. It is now not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted in case No.124/06 which was under section 302 read with 34 of IPC. The record also reveals the factual position that all the pending cases are prior to the year 2002. In this facts situation, the question is as to whether the action on the part of the police authorities in externing the petitioner is legal or proper. Perusal of section 56(1)(a) and (b) postulates that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC or in the abatement of any such offence and in the opinion of -3- such officer, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, then an externment order is permissible to be passed. The petitioner has been externed on 17-4-2007 and would be completing the externment period of one year on 16-4-2008. Hardly a period of two and half months is yet to expire. Having regard to the antecedents of the present petitioner on account of his acts, the petitioner is facing prosecution in as much as 13 cases. The police authority cannot be said to be unjustified in passing the order of externment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in 2007 All M.R. (Criminal) page 84 wherein the learned Single Judge of this court has held that the authority under the Bombay Police Act cannot extern a person from a much larger area without having regard to the area of activity of the person concerned. In the facts of the said case, the externment from Gr. Bombay, New Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts was found to be in excess of the area of activity of the person concerned. No straight jacket formula in regard to the area of externment can be applied which could answer all the situation. It would depend on facts of each case. -4- 3. The learned APP has contended that Bombay, Gr. Bombay, New Bombay, Thane are neighbouring districts and hence it cannot be said that the externment of the petitioner from the said districts would be in excess. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order by exercising the discretion in favour of the present petitioner. In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed. ....