Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Abolish Hanging, Says Centre Can Explore Alternative Methods  ||  Supreme Court: Sentences With Life Imprisonment Must Run Concurrently, Not Consecutively  ||  SC: Insurer Not Liable Beyond Sum Assured Without Advance Premium Payment  ||  Supreme Court: Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Regularised Due to Long Service  ||  SC: Courts Should Not Interfere Late in Tender Processes; Challenges Must Be Prompt  ||  Delhi HC: UAPA Default Bail Triggered after 180 Days, Not 90 under BNSS  ||  Madras HC: No Place for Caste Discrimination in Temples, God Treats All Equally  ||  Bombay HC: Public Authorities Need Not Obtain Third-Party Information for RTI Applicants  ||  Delhi HC Levies Rs.5 Lakh Costs on Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited over Sham Plea  ||  Delhi HC: False Marriage Promise Invalidates Consent Only if it Taints Consent    

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