SC: Filing a False FIR Alone does not Amount to Abetment of Suicide  ||  SC: Police Cannot Probe Offences under Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act  ||  SC: UP Gangsters Act Creates no Offence, Perpetuates Violence against Citizens  ||  SC: Caste Abuse in Private Space without Public Presence is not SC/ST Act Offence  ||  SC Reduces Judicial Service Practice Norm to 1 Year; Mandates Training & Clerkship  ||  SC: Wife’s Income does not Reduce Father’s Duty to Maintain Children  ||  SC: Government Cannot Revisit PSC Eligibility Decision When Service Rules Make it Final  ||  Allahabad HC: S.34 IPC Applies if Co-Accused Shares a ‘Functional Relationship’ with Offence  ||  P&H High Court: PSC Cannot Introduce Minimum Interview Marks After Medical Faculty Selection Begins  ||  MP HC: Comprehensive Insurance Doesn't Mean Unlimited Passenger Liability Without Terms    

Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi v. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (21 Jun 2016)

Bombay High Court quashes unsubstantiated externment order

Criminal

The Bombay High Court quashed an order of externment - excluding a person from a city or district - against an accused for procedural insufficiencies and an unsuitable inference that his presence caused key witnesses to get cold feet.

An externment order was issued to the accused under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 exiling him from Greater Bombay Suburban and Thane Districts for two years. The officer-in-charge had noted that witnesses were afraid of the accused disturbing peace and refused to depose against him in public.

The court, however, was of the opinion that the order was contrary to the provisions of the law. It expressed dissatisfaction over the determination that witnesses were not coming forward to depose against the accused out of fear, noting that they had already recorded in-camera statements.

Tags : EXTERNMENT   WITNESS INTIMIDATION   IN-CAMERA TESTIMONY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved