Delhi High Court · 2025

W.P.(CRL) 1616/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1616/2025, CRL.M.A. 15207/2025, CRL.M.A. 15208/2025 DEENA NATH @ DINA NATH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mudita Sharda, Ms. Gayatri Nandwani and Mr. Adrian Abbi, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for State with Mr. Arun Kumar, Insp., PS-Prasad Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 16.05.2025 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) assails the order dated 29th October, 2024 passed by Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police3, Central District, New Delhi in case titled “State v. Deena Nath” externing the Petitioner for a period of two years. Additionally, the Petitioner also seeks setting aside order dated 12th March, 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 3 “Addl. DCP” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:22 W.P.(CRL) 1616/2025 Page 2 of 6 2025 passed by Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal against the order of the Addl. DCP. 2. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an illiterate, 50-year-old married person, who was engaged in the business of making/putting “kaaj-button”. She urges that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family and in his absence, his business has now completely shut down. The Petitioner’s spouse has also unfortunately been externed from Delhi. It is urged that the Petitioner’s 19-year-old niece, who is financially dependent upon him, is now being forced to stay alone in the house without any male or female presence and her future education is in jeopardy, because there is no flow of money due to the closure of Petitioner’s business. 3. On merits of the case, it is urged that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in three cases which have been relied upon in the impugned order of externment - being FIR No. 0001/2024, FIR No. 0116/2024 and FIR No. 0117/2024 for the offences under the Delhi Excise Act and the Gambling Act. Petitioner urges that these cases are false. It is submitted that even the investigation is still pending, and no chargesheet has been filed yet. It is also pointed out that out of 39 cases cited in the impugned order of externment, a majority of which are for the offences under the Punjab Excise Act, the cases appearing at serial no. 1 to 36 pertain to the years 1997-2014. Thus, it is argued that there is no live link between the said cases and the impugned order of externment and these cases they cannot form the basis of the externment after 10 years. 4. Moreover, it is submitted that the Petitioner has been acquitted in 23 of the cited cases and discharged in one case, while the status of two cases This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:22 W.P.(CRL) 1616/2025 Page 3 of 6 are not known. It is further urged that it is a well-settled principle that an order directing externment for the maximum period of two years, must be based on cogent reasons and strong evidence which establishes that such a person deserves the maximum punishment. 5. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The impugned order of externment lays out the details of 39 cases which were initiated against the Petitioner, forming the basis of the externment proposal that has been accepted. Indeed, cases appearing at serial no. 1 to 36 are cases from the year 1997 to 2014, however, in the opinion of the Court, to say that they have no nexus to the decision for externment is untenable. These reflect that the Petitioner has had a long history of involvement in such cases. 6. Moreover, it must be noted that would the Petitioner seeks to emphasise that he has been acquitted in 23 of the aforesaid 36 older cases, it must be highlighted that he has also been convicted in 10 such cases. 7. Further, as regards the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the other FIRs which are relied upon in the impugned order, firstly, it must be noted that this Court in the present proceedings cannot adjudicate the question of the Petitioner’s guilt in the said cases. Secondly, the Court takes note of the submissions advanced by the ASC for the State, who has submitted that in the two of the said cases – i.e., FIR No. 0001/2024 and FIR No. 0117/2024, which appear at serial no. 37 and 39 respectively, the chargesheets have been filed. Therefore, it is evident that the investigation in the said cases have resulted in certain evidence being found against the Petitioner, indicating his implication. 8. As regards the contention that the impugned order of externment passed by the Addl. DCP is devoid of cogent reasons and evidence, it must This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:22 W.P.(CRL) 1616/2025 Page 4 of 6 be noted that after going through the externment proposal and finding sufficient material on record, a notice under Section 49/50 of the Delhi Police Act, 19784, was duly served on the Petitioner, and he was given an opportunity to defend his case. During the said proceedings, two prosecution witnesses from the Delhi Police deposed that the Petitioner is a desperate criminal whose involvement in 39 criminal cases indicates that he is dangerous. Prosecution witnesses also deposed to the fact that witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose against the Petitioner due to fear of safety to their person and property at his hands. On the other hand, the Petitioner, being unrepresented by counsel despite being given adequate opportunities, did not lead evidence to establish his innocence and in fact, he admitted to his previous involvements and requested for a lenient view to be taken. 9. Considering the material placed on record, including the statement of witnesses recorded in-camera proceedings, the Addl. DCP was satisfied that witnesses are unwilling to come forward to make a statement in public against the Petitioner due to apprehension in terms of their safety. Furthermore, upon a close scrutiny of the material on record and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the Addl. DCP held that Petitioner has been involved in criminal activities since the year 1997 and has not been desisting himself from such activities and there is sufficient grounds to conclude that he is actively involved in these cases. As such, the DCP directed externment of the Petitioner holding that his presence in the community is hazardous to society. 10. In appeal, this order was upheld by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor 4 “DP Act” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:22 W.P.(CRL) 1616/2025 Page 5 of 6 of Delhi, who observed that 39 cases have been registered against the Petitioner involving offences under the Excise Act and Gambling Act from 1997 to 2024, which adversely affect normal lives of the citizens. Moreover, the Petitioner was unable to put forth convincing reasons for granting leniency. 11. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, both impugned orders are well reasoned, cogent and based on the substantial evidence on record. It is well-established that externment is an administrative function and the Courts should be slow to interfere in such matters unless the decision is illegal, irrational or suffers from procedural impropriety5. It is equally well established that in cases of externment, the satisfaction of the competent authority ought not to be interfered with only because an alternative view can be taken. The interference of this Court in such cases would be justified if the satisfaction recorded is demonstrably perverse and not based on the material on record6. 12. In light of the above, in the present case, on the basis of the material on record, there is a reasonable apprehension that the presence of the Petitioner in the society is leading to alarming danger in the minds of law-abiding citizens of the area who have a right to lead peaceful life. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any basis to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Addl. DCP and the decision rendered by Appellate Authority being the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. 5 State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, (2005) 5 SCC 181 6 Gazi Saddudin v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 7 SCC 330 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:22 W.P.(CRL) 1616/2025 Page 6 of 6 13. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 16, 2025 nk