Supreme Court: Ad Valorem Court Fees Apply to Appeals Seeking Statutory Land Acquisition Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Cruise Voyages Remain Shipping Business under Section 44B Despite Onboard Services  ||  Supreme Court: People Abandon Cattle on Roads But Object to Their Use For Food  ||  Supreme Court Stays CIC Decision Declaring NSE Subject to the RTI Act  ||  SC: Wife May Be Denied Interim Maintenance if Husband Ex Facie Establishes Adultery  ||  SC: Prior Testimony is Inadmissible without Section 299 CrPC Order against Absconder  ||  Supreme Court: Administrative Action Can't Be Invalidated Solely for Lacking Formal Order  ||  Calcutta High Court: Section 141 NI Act Does Not Apply to Sole Proprietorships  ||  Orissa High Court Criticizes Magistrate for Defying Direction in Cheque Bounce Case  ||  Delhi High Court Safeguards Yuvraj Singh's Personality Rights, Orders Deepfake Takedown    

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