The petitioner herein was a witness in a case wherein his business partner was murdered by a group of one Dorai within the vicinity of Mumbai. The Petitioner addressed a letter to the Senior Police Inspector, Aarey Police Station seeking police protection for himself and his family given the murder of his business partner. The Petitioner was arraigned as accused in the case despite the Aarey Police Station and its officers being aware that the Petitioner was not present at the spot of the incident. However, deliberately at the instance, the petitioner and his brothers were assaulted and were hospitalized for severe injuries and F.I.R. under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was registered at the instance of the Petitioner against Dorai and few others whereas a cross-complaint was registered against the petitioner by Aarey Police Station.
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned externment order is excessive since the petitioner's alleged activities are stated to be in Aarey Colony, Goregaon, Mumbai. It was submitted that there was no live link between the prejudicial activities and the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent-authority; the subjective satisfaction was not been arrived at before passing the externment order. The material which was considered while passing the first externment order could not have been considered while passing the second externment order.
learned council appearing for the Respondent submitted that the alleged activities of the petitioner are causing danger to the lives of the people residing in the vicinity of the Aarey colony. The reasons given in the impugned order are self-explanatory and based upon documents and evidence. Therefore, the learned council submitted that the petition may be rejected.
Since there was no specific discussion in the impugned order that due to the alleged activities and fear of the petitioner, the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner because of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property. After a brief discussion, the impugned order of externment could not be legally sustained and hence, the order confirming the externment order passed by the Respondent was quashed and set aside.