The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 803 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHAIK BARKATH @ BABLU S/O LATE SHAIK ABDUL AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT No.336, 2ND FLOOR 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, OPPOSITE SIDDIQA MASJID GANGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU CITY - 560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI A. S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WEST DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 053. 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 040.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BYATRAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C. (FILED UNDER SECTION 438 READ WITH 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE EXTERNMENT ORDER DATED 12.05.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.1 UNDER SECTION 55(a)(b) OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 IN No.24/MAG/EXTERNMENT/DCP (W)/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the externment order dated 12.05.2025 passed by Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division, Bengaluru in No. 24/MAG/EXTERNMENT/DCP(W)/2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents. 3. On the basis of the letter of respondent No. 2 - Police Inspector, Chandra Layout Police Station dated 27.02.2025 and shara of respondent No. 3 - Assistant Commissioner of Police, Byatarayanapura Sub-Division, Bangalore dated 01.03.2025, respondent No. 1 caused a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR notice dated 14.03.2025 to the petitioner under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the `K.P. Act’) to show cause regarding the externment of the petitioner from Bengaluru city under Section 55(a)(b) of the K.P. Act. In the said notice there was a reference made to the case which was pending against the petitioner on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-60), Bengaluru in S.C. No. 1134/2021 arising out of Chandra Layout Police Station Crime No. 75/2021 for offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 323, 302, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioner appeared and filed his statement of objections. Respondent No. 1 after hearing has passed the impugned order of externment sending the petitioner out of Bengaluru from 12.05.2025 to 11.07.2025 for a period of 2 months. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the show case notice (Annexure A) dated 14.03.2025 has not been enclosed with the shara of respondent No. 3 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR and report of respondent No. 2. He further submits that even before passing of the impugned order said documents which are referred to in the show case notice and the impugned order have not been supplied to the petitioner. He contends that the notice is very vague and not supported by copy of shara of respondent No. 3 and report of respondent No. 2. Non-furnishing the documents to the petitioner against whom an order has been passed is of general nature and it is too general or vague so as to render the petitioner not able to tender his explanation in respect of what is levelled against him. He further submits that except a sessions case pending against the petitioner there are no other cases registered against him. There is no allegation of petitioner threatening the witnesses or hampering the prosecution evidence in the case pending against him. He placed reliance on the decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Basappa Ghaviyappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1976(2)Kar.L.J. 329. On these grounds he prayed for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order of externment. 5. Learned HCGP would substantiate the impugned order and submits that after giving an opportunity, considering the shara of respondent No. 3 and report of respondent No. 2 the impugned order has been passed and it is passed in accordance with the provisions of the K.P. Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the impugned order and other materials placed on record. 7. In the show cause notice dated 14.03.2025 (Annexure- A) even though there is a reference to the shara of respondent No. 3 and report of respondent No. 2, they have not been enclosed with the said notice. Petitioner has been deprived of going through the said shara of respondent No. 3 and report of respondent No. 2. The impugned order has been passed only on the basis of the said shara of respondent No. 3 and report of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No. 2. On perusal of the impugned order and the notice, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is threatening the public and in spite of granting bail, he has violated the bail conditions and there are chances of he involving in commission of offences and there is likelihood of breach of peace at the instance of this petitioner. 8. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Basappa Ghaviyappa (supra) has held as under: “No doubt, Section 58 says that the information to be furnished to the person against whom an order is to be passed should be of a general nature. But at the same time, it should not be too general or vague so as to render the persons not able to tender their explanation in respect of what is leveled against them. The test to be applied for the purpose of finding out whether the information which is conveyed to the persons is proper or not, is whether the information is of such a character as to enable them to give explanation.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR 9. Further, coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Syed Zulfikar @ Zulfi Vs. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 4999/2022 disposed off on 29.06.2022 considering a similar case has observed thus: “11. This notice, as noted above is very vague. This notice is not supported by a copy of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Karwar. In the said notice, neither the specific contents of the report nor the gist of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police is reiterated, so as to make the said notice in compliance with Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act. Therefore, without issuing any such notice and seeking explanation from the party, the District Magistrate should not have initiated and proceeded with the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate is vitiated at the initial stage itself.” 10. In the case on hand also, the allegation against the petitioner are general in nature or vague so as to render the person not able to tender his explanation in respect of what is leveled against him. Said show-cause notice has also not been enclosed with shara of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21358 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No. 3 and report of respondent No. 2. Considering these aspects, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. More so, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that by virtue of impugned order the petitioner is out of Bengaluru city for 37 days. Considering all these aspects, revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division, Bengaluru in No. 24/MAG/EXTERNMENT/DCP(2)/2025 is set aside. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44