Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

Sachin Yeswant Pokre and anr. v. State of Maharashtra and ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (14 Jun 2016)

No automatic grant of interim stay in appeal against externment

Criminal

Courts cannot grant interim stay in instances of appeal against an externment order under the Bombay Police Act 1951 as a matter of policy, a full bench of the Bombay High Court held.

The court was faced with the question, whether after an order of externment had been passed under the Bombay Police Act 1951, an order granting interim stay of the order should be passed by a court as matter of course.

The Petitioners submitted that externment, exclusion from a certain city or district, was a “drastic order”, one applied for a limited duration. However, since appeals against the order could not be heard for several months, stay on the should be granted in the interim.

An earlier Division Bench order had interpreted interim stay under the Act as a matter of course, as failure to do so would render the appeal infructuous.

The Full Bench of the High Court disagreed with the above ruling. It ruled that “discretion vested in the Appellate Authority must be exercised not blindly as a matter of policy”. An appellate authority would have to hear the application interim relief expeditiously and “apply its mind” as to whether the externment order is coloured in illegality.

Relevant : Shamkumar Arjun Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. MANU/MH/0382/1987 Section 60 Bombay Police Act, 1951

Section 63AA Bombay Police Act, 1951

Tags : BOMBAY POLICE   EXTERNMENT   INTERIM STAY   APPEAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved