TANVIR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The order dated 15.01.2014 externing the petitioner out of Nagpur city and district under Sec. 56(1)(A)(B) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is questioned before this Court.

(2.) Shri Tiwari, learned counsel has raised the following contentions, (i) First four offences looked into are still pending trial and in none of the reports/FIRs as lodged, name of the petitioner figured, (ii) There is no material on record of said cases to connect the petitioner with crime. He further states that there are total five cases at present going on against the petitioner in Nagpur district. In relation to those cases, he is required to attend court on various dates. This fact and his attendance as required is totally lost sight of in the impugned order. He draws support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Akram Ajij Shaikh v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at : 2013 All. MR. (Cri) 3999.

(3.) The learned APP is opposing the petition. She relies upon the reply affidavit to contend that the offences are of grave and serious nature and the order has been passed after giving full opportunity to the present petitioner. She also invites attention to reply as filed to point out that there are six crimes registered against the petitioner in which charge sheets are already filed. According to her, in this situation, as all relevant aspects have been looked into and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity, no interference is warranted.