Del. HC: Severity of Offence Can’t Disentitle Foreigner to Get Parole for Filing SLP  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Compound Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act at Revision Stage Without Complainant’s Consent  ||  Bom. HC: There Should be Some Accountability Fixed on Courts in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration  ||  Tel. HC: Employee Can’t be Denied Promotion on Pretext of Pendency Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  All. HC: State Government has no Power to Cancel the NOC Granted by PCI  ||  SC: Can’t Allow Revision Petition u/s 115 CPC Against Trail Court Order Rejecting Review of Decree  ||  Mad. HC: Record Statements of Witnesses u/s 161 CrPC Using Electronic Means atleast in Serious Crime  ||  Delhi HC to UGC: Ensure Strict Compliance of UGC Act, 1956, with Regard to Specification of Degree  ||  Mad. HC: Notice Needn’t be Served to Victim in HCP by Accused Following Preventive Detention  ||  SC to Centre/States: Ensure the Effective Implementation of HIV Act, 2017    

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


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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved