IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 589 OF 2007 Sandeep R. Thore..... ...... ......Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra...... ...... .....Respondent. Mr.R.N.Gite, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.P.A.Pol, APP For the State. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 18/2/08 PC: By this petition the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order of externment dated 10.11.06 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan so also the appellate order passed by the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 17.2.07. 2. The petitioner was served with show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be externed under section 59(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act from Thane, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and Raigadh districts. The show cause notice makes a mention of five pending cases against the petitioner the particulars of which are given herein below: i) CR No.223/1999 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323 read with section 34 of IPC; ii) CR No.258/2002 for the offences punishable under sections 379 read with section 34 of IPC; 1 iii) CR No.361/2002 for the offences punishable under sections 379 read with section 34 of IPC; iv) CR No.140/2005 for the offences punishable under sections 509, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC; v) CR No.273/2006 for the offences punishable under sections 452, 323, 427 read with section 34 of IPC; vi) NC No.573/2000 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC; vii) NC No.635/2000 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506. 3. The cases at Sr.Nos.6 and 7 are non-cognizable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the cases are falling within the jurisdiction of only one police station i.e. at Mahatma Phule Chowk, Kalyan. It is contended that the order of externment is wholly disproportionate with the alleged area of operation of the present petitioner. In his submission as all the cases relate to the jurisdiction of only one police station there was no justification to pass an order in excess of what was required to be passed. Thus placing reliance on some judgments of this Court it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as the same is disproportionately in excess of the need. It is next submitted that the petitioner has never been convicted hereto before. It is also submitted that the in-camera statements recorded do no mention the time, place and month of the incident and thus are vague and do not provide any material for the respondent to pass an order of externment. Lastly it is submitted that the 2 petitioner came to be externed on 10.11.06 and since then he is residing at Nashik. After the externment the petitioner has not been found to be involved in any illegal activity. Learned additional public prosecutor on the other hand submits that as the four districts from which the petitioner has been externed are neighbouring districts it cannot be said that the order of externment is in excess of what was required. It is not disputed that since the externment a period of one year and four months has gone by and there has been no complaint against the present petitioner. I have perused the order. I have also noted the fact that though externment is for a period of two years a period of one year and four months has passed and the petitioner has suffered externment for that period. From the show cause notice itself it is crystal clear that the area of operation of the petitioner is restricted only to one police station. At no point of time the petitioner has indulged in any criminal activity outside the jurisdiction of one police station hence externment of the petitioner in the facts of the present case from four districts is unjustified and goes to unnecessarily encroach upon the liberty of the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that in-camera statement do no inspire confidence as the same lack in material particulars and for the reasons set out herein above and having regard to the facts of the present case, more so as the petitioner has already undergone the externment of one year and four months I deem it appropriate to allow the present writ petition. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan 3 externing the petitioner from Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigadh districts is quashed and set aside. The appellate order dated 17.10.07 which confirms the order of externment is also quashed and set aside. 4. Rule made absolute in above terms. 18.2.08 4