MAHESH SHRIVASTVA @ JEEVA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 1 of 22

$~63

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10th October, 2025 + W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 & CRL.M.A. 30251/2025

MAHESH SHRIVASTVA @ JEEVA

S/o Sh. Brij Kishore .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashish Upadhyay & Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

versus

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Through Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, Delhi .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 195 0 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 3 (hereinafter referred to as „B.N.S.S‟ ) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Mahesh Shrivastva @ Jeeva for quashing of the Order dated 15.07.2025 in Case No. 103/2025 of the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, upholding the Externment Order dated 24.05.2025 ( with a partial modification in the period of externment ) of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, Delhi.

2. Brief facts are that the Petitioner was born on 02.12.1982 and since Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 2 of 22

1988, is residing at S-12/121, Indira Gandhi Camp, Near Khanna Market, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. He got married to Ms. Rekha in the year 2005 and has been blessed with two children, namely, Umesh Srivas tav and Updesh Srivastav, aged 17 years and 14 years respectively. Elder s on is studying in Class XI while the younger son is a student of Class IX and has represented India in Kabbadi (Sports Activities), Junior C ategory held at Nepal.

3. The Petitioner further submits that he has faced trial in eight Criminal Cases till 2021 and has been acquitted in all the cases, e xcept in one case in which he pleaded guilty and deposited the fine of Rs.500/-.

4. The past, however, has continued to haunt the Petitioner and the Police Officials, without any cause registered Kalandra under Secti on 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟) but those proceedings were also closed.

5. The Petitioner has joined the main stream of the society with t he passage of time and is in regular employment. From 2018 till March, 2020, he was employed in a shop situated in Tisra Pushta, Gali N o. 9, Khajuri where the Car Seat Covers etc. manufactured. Post lockdown due to Co vid, there was no business. Thereafter, since 23.10.2022, he has been employed with the New Concept Services having its Office at Khasra No. 54/1, 54/3, 54/7, IInd Avenue, Bandh Road, Amin Farm, Chandan Hola, New Del hi- 110074, as Event Supervisor and has continued in emp loyment with no involvement in any criminal activities.

6. The Petitioner states that he is living in vicinity where nu mber of crimes take place and he has rendered valuable assistance to the Police as the informer and helped them in solving various cases, which eventua lly Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 3 of 22

has led to the enmity of the Petitioner with other criminals wh o have developed hatred against him, as the entire setup of gamblin g in the vicinity, has been closed by the Police Officials, on account of the inputs of the Petitioner. All this has led to issues with some Pol ice Officials and the Petitioner has always found himself to be in a tough spot wit h threats extended to involve him in false Criminal Cases.

7. For the last five years i.e. from 2018-2023, he has been li ving a peaceful life. There are some antisocial elements, who have ill will and hostile feelings against him. He has been falsely implicated in the year 2023 in FIR No. 195/2023 under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟ ), registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony. It is claimed that this false implication is on accoun t of the Petitioner‟s endeavour for better future.

8. It is now becoming a challenge for him to provide information as the persons, who got arrested because of the information conveyed by him, are having enmity. The Petitioner sensing this threat, had made first Representation to the Senior Police Officials on 05.10.2023 about his apprehension of being falsely implicated in a Criminal Case. H e was aware that he can be implicated merely on the Statement of any person o r even Police Officials, without appreciating the support given by him to the Police Officials.

9. On 26.11.2023, he was again implicated in false FIR of Arms Act.

The Police Officials of Special Staff forcefully took him in their Car while he was purchasing Vegetables and then a Knife was planted on him. Even three-four calls at 112 were made by his son, Umesh from his Mobile Number 8929942151, who informed the Police that his father h as been Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 4 of 22

apprehended/kidnapped by some unknown persons. He has been admitted to Bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Several crim inals sell substance/narcotics in the vicinity about which the Petitio ner has informed the Police Officials, which again has triggered the enmity of the Petitioner with the local criminals, as well as, the Police Officials, who are assisting in running this syndicate.

10. On 17.03.2024 at about 07:00 p.m, three unknown persons in Wangon R bearing Registration No. DL 6C S 2929 came inside the street on which the house of the Petitioner is situated and sought information about him. On the Petitioner revealing his name, one person w hile pulling his shirt, stated “Aaj to yeh lamba jayega….le chalo isko”. All these acts are duly recorded in the CCTV footage. In the meanwhile, some ne ighbours collected and started asking those persons for their Identity Card. After they saw that number of persons have gathered on the spot and the Peti tioner also made a call at No. 112. Those persons claimed that they were Police Officials and threatened that “Agli Baar teri……main Goli Marenge”

“Dekte Hai Kaun Bchata Hai.” They have even threatened the elder son of the Petitioner of false implication in the criminal case.

11. The Petitioner lodged a Complaint through E Mail on 19.03.20 24 with the Commissioner of Police, DCP South, Police Station Hauz Kh as, ACP, Police Station Defence Colony and SHO, Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi with evidences, but no action was taken. Ho wever, Notice under Section 50 of Delhi Police Act dated 16.04.2024 for Externment proceedings was received by the Petitioner and he regu larly attended the proceedings and filed his detailed Reply.

12. Subsequently, SI Prakash Meena, who had earlier visited his house , Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 5 of 22

started demanding gratification from the Petitioner, through co ntacts and stated that he would implicate the Petitioner in a false crimi nal case if he did not agree. The Petitioner, however, could not accede to s uch demands as he was not having financial resources being employed in a sm all Firm, on a monthly salary.

13. Again on 14.11.2024, at about 09:15 p.m., Sub Inspector Park ash Meena and three other Police Officials forcibly entered into his house and kicked his minor son and started abusing him and gave th reats. They snatched his mobile, which scared him. The minor son was forced to remove his T Shirt and was abused. The son of the Petitioner i nformed that his father and mother were not at home, but then they pushe d him outside the house. They even misbehaved with him outside the house, which caused him a lot of mental trauma. After the Petitioner was informed b y the neighbours, he immediately rushed back to his home but by that time, the Police Officials had left.

14. He called Sub Inspector Parkash Meena late in the evening, who asked him to meet them. He enquired to which they stated “tujhe bada wakil banana hai….siddha aa ja nahi to is baar lambe cas e main dallonga tujhe aur tere bete ko”. He again made a Complaint dated 19.11.2024 through E Mail along with the Videos of the incident to the Senior Police Officials but no action was taken. He filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No. 3803/2024 and this Court. Vide Order dated 05.12.2024 the Commissioner of Police was directed to treat the Writ Petitio n as a Representation and to decide the matter expeditiously.

15. The allegations against the Petitioner as made by the Respondent, are that the SHO, Lodhi Colony reported that the Petitioner has been engaging Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 6 of 22

himself in the commission of illegal acts and criminal activi ties. His illegal activities and movements in the NCT of Delhi, are calculated to cause alarm, danger, harm and disturbing societal peace. He is a pot ential source of harming public at large, which conclusion is based on th e aforementioned ten FIRs. It was further stated that the Petitioner‟s presence in the NCT of Delhi, was hazardous to the community.

16. The Externment Proceedings were initiated on 16.04.2024 as per t he Provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, Delhi by its Order da ted 24.04.2025, directed the Petitioner to remove himself beyond the limits of NCT of Delhi for a period of one years within seven days from the date of Order. He was further directed not to enter or return to the limits of NCT of Delhi, during that period, without written permission of the competent authority.

17. The impugned Order dated 24.04.2025 of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, Delhi was challe nged before the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi but the Externment Order w as upheld vide Order dated 24.05.2025, though the period of externment was reduced to eight months.

18. The Petitioner submits that he is in regular employment, as is evident from his Form No. 26 for Financial Year 2024-2025, issued by his employer. Despite the fact that he is not a criminal and is well settled in life, the Order dated 24.04.2024 for Externment for a period of one year, has been passed.

19. This Order wa s challenged by way of Appeal, but the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor vide Order dated 15.07.2025 has upheld the Order of Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 7 of 22

Externment. However, the period has been reduced to eight mon ths instead of one year.

20. Since the date of Order i.e. 24.04.2025, the Petitioner is not resi ding in Delhi and has to apply for leaves in his Office. Unfortunately, in addition to the unpaid leaves, the Petitioner‟s family is facing anoth er medical urgency as the elder son aged about 19 years of the Petitioner, is suffering from some infection and the doctors have advised major surgery. H e was taken to Safdarjung Hospital and presently, is undergoing treatment in Holy Family Hospital as the Government Hospital could not provide any relief to the son from his suffering. He requires immediate medical attention for which some major expenses are required to be met.

21. The Externment Order is challenged on the grounds that it has been made without proper application of mind, in a totally mechanical manner. It has not been considered by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi th at an independent analysis of the allegations or procedural irregular ities was required to be considered independently in the Appeal.

22. The Respondent has failed to establish any immediate danger or threat by the Petitioner to public safety and there is no substan tive evidence to this effect.

23. Reliance is placed on Prem Chand vs. Union of Indian, 1981 (1) SCC 639 wherein it was observed that mere police apprehension is n ot enough and there must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes the movements and acts of the person in questio n alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence.

24. The impugned Order lacks reasonable foundation as it does not demonstrate these pertinent facts while making the Order. It has also not Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 8 of 22

been demonstrated that the witnesses, if any, were indeed unw illing to testify against the Petitioner. Moreover, the proceedings were co nducted in a biased and arbitrary manner without following due process of law and giving opportunity to the Petitioner, to defend himself.

25. The Externment Order has not only restricted his ability to earn the livelihood but has also prevented him from taking care of his ailing parents.

Moreover, the facts germane to Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, have not been satisfied. In the light of the livelihood and the p revious conduct of the Petitioner, it is evident that he is not likely to commi t an offence and does not pose a threat to Public Order.

26. The Reply filed by the Petitioner at the time of hearing, has not been considered. He claims that he never committed any alleged offence nor was he involved in any manner, but has been implicated falsel y in the alleged offences. He has been enlarged on Bail in all the cases. The Petitio ner claims that he is a respectable citizen of society and is a sole bread earner in the family. He is innocent and has deep roots in the soci ety. If the Externment Order is not quashed, his freedom and liberty would be curtailed and his family would come to starvation as they have no other source of income.

27. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Impugned Order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 103/2025 by the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, may be set-aside.

28. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the Respondent wherein it is asserted that the Petitioner is a desperate criminal having inv olvement in different types of serious 11 cases, which include Abduction , Extortion, attempt to commit culpable homicide, hurt by dangerous wea pon, assault, Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 9 of 22

which are punishable under Chapter XVI of IPC, Gambling Act, Del hi Excise Act and Arms Act.

29. The Respondent has claimed that he has been continuing his criminal activities and engaging himself in the commission of offence and his criminal activities are a great menace to the society. He is so desp erate and dangerous that his presence in the NCT of Delhi or in any part thereof, is hazardous to the community.

30. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I, South District, Delhi, after analyzing the material and considering the proposal carefully, initiated the proceedings for Externment. Due procedures were followed and t he Notice under Section 50 Delhi Polic Act, was got served upon the Petitioner, who appeared before the Additional DCP on 30.04.2024. He was informed about the general nature of material allegation ag ainst him in vernacular, to which he pleaded guilty and claimed trial. He submitted his detailed Reply to the Notice under Section 50 of the Delhi Poli ce Act and also produced his surety. He was also informed about his rig ht to engage a counsel.

31. The Prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, PW-1, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, SHO, Police Station Lodhi Colony, who deposed about the criminal character of the Petitioner because of which no one dares to depose against him. There is a threat to the person and property of suc h persons at the hands of the Petitioner. He is a habitual offender and therefore, his externment for two years, is sought.

32. PW-2, Head Constable, Rinku MHC(R) of Police Station Lodhi Colony, proved the cases registered against the Petitioner, as per the record.

The opportunity was given to the Petitioner, to cross-examine both the Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 10 of 22

Prosecution witnesses, which he failed to avail.

33. On several occasions, the Petitioner was advised to engage a counsel.

A written Notice dated 30.04.2024 was also given to him to defend the case through a lawyer at his cost or to approach the Delhi Legal Ser vices Authority, Saket, to engage a counsel free of cost, in case he was no t in a position to engage a counsel.

34. During the course of Externment proceedings under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, the Petitioner also got involved in another FIR No.

25/2024 dated 12.01.2024 under Section 188 IPC , registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony where the Petitioner was booked for not ge tting the police verification done of his tenant. He was fined by the lear ned JMFC, on 11.03.2024.

35. Supplementary Notice under Section 50 of Delhi Polic Act, 1978 dated 22.04.2025, was issued to him and he was directed to file the written Reply, but he did not do so. Several opportunities were given t o the Petitioner to produce his defence witnesses but he stated tha t he has no witnesses in his defence.

36. The Petitioner addressed his arguments in person and admitted his previous involvements. He claimed that he was living peacefully and normally and earning his livelihood. He prayed for an opportunity to reform himself for leading a peaceful life and promised not to indulge in any criminal activities in future and to maintain peace in society.

37. After hearing arguments and going through the records, the learned Additional DCP, in view of the evidence, the criminal record of the Petitioner, his activities, testimony of the Prosecution witne sses, in-camera statements and other evidence led during the proceedings, concluded that he Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 11 of 22

was a criminal who is not likely to reform his way of life ti ll stringent measures are taken against him and his activities in the area of NCT o f Delhi are calculated to cause harm, danger and alarm to the respect able citizens. Moreover, unless he is weaned from his present Com pany, he is not likely to reform himself and his continuous presence in the area leads to alarm and danger and is a constant source of tension and distu rbance in the minds of law-abiding citizens of the area. The offences committed b y him are of dangerous nature and the in-camera statements of the w itnesses, which have been placed on record, indicate that these witnesses were unwilling to testify against him. He is also the Bad Charact er (B.C.) of Bundle-A of Police Station Lodhi Colony, Delhi.

38. Considering all the evidence, the Order of Externment for a per iod of 12 months, was made under Section 47 of Delhi Police Act, by the learned Additional DCP.

39. The Appeal preferred before the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, against the Order of Externment, stands dismissed. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Gov ernor of Delhi, the Petitioner had approached this Court for interim relief s ince his son was admitted in the Hospital. It is submitted that there is no merit in the present Petition, which is liable to be dismissed.

Submissions heard and the record perused.

40. The Petitioner has challenged the Externment Order dated 24.05.2025 upheld by the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi vide Order dated 15.07.2024, on various grounds, namely, that the impu gned Order lacks clear and cogent material justifying any imminent threat to public safety merely on the basis of stale FIRs, and also that principle s of natural Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 12 of 22

justice have not been followed insomuch as no opportunity was given to participate effectively in the proceedings or to be represented th rough a legal counsel.

41. Before adverting to the merits of the Case, it is pertinent to ob serve that the scope of judicial review by a Writ Court of a quasi-ju dicial Orders, is limited, as explained by the Apex Court in the case of State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, (2005) 5 SCC 181. It was noted that an Order made in exercise of power whether legislative or administrative, can be set- aside only if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power o r it is manifestly arbitrary. These principles can be grouped in two cat egories, namely, (i ) failure to exercise a discretion and (ii) excess or abuse of discretionary power, which both are not mutually exclusive. However, the Courts must be slow to interfere in the administrative fun ctions unless the decision is tainted by the aforesaid vulnerabilities.

42. The most significant principle to consider for the valid exe rcise of discretion is „Reasonableness‟, which implies that the person must have drawn his attention to all the pertinent aspects, which he is bound to consider, which are relevant and also must excludes such factor s, which are irrelevant.

43. The other aspect of discretion has been explained by Lord Dip lock in CCSU Case, (1984) 3 All ER 935, which are the principles of „ illegality‟, „procedural impropriety‟ and „irrationality‟. „Irrationality, which is another aspect of due exercise of discretion, has been termed as „Wednesbury reasonableness‟, means a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no reasonable person, who has applied his mind to the question, could have arrived at.

Signed By:VIKAS

ARORA

Signing Date:16.10.2025

11:09:42

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 13 of 22

44. Similar principles have been noted by the Apex Court in the C ase of Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 wherein it was held that the Judicial Review is confined not only to the deci sion itself, but also any infirmity, which may lie in the decision making process.

45. With these observations, the present Order of Externment under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, made against the Petitioner, may be considered.

46. The Externment Order is not a judicial adjudication of an offence committed by an individual, but it lies in the realm of law a nd Order in the context of escalation of crime, wherein restrictions are clamped o n an individual, which in normal times may appear unreasonable. The Externment Order is an extraordinary measure limiting and rest ricting the movement of an individual and such Orders must not be made in a mechanical manner. The consequences of such Order can not only prevent a person from staying in his house along with his family members during such period, but may also results in deprivation of his right to livelihood.

Recourse to this Section must be made only as an extraordinary m easure in case the circumstances so merit, as has been held in the Case of Deepak vs.

State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1999.

47. The main observations in the Externment Order to reach the conclusion that the Petitioner is a desperate and dangerous perso n, are as under:

“Keeping in view the evidence brought on file, i.e.

notice, record of his criminal activities, prosecution witnesses, in-camera statements and other evidence adduced during the course of proceedings, I have no Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 14 of 22

hesitation in concluding that he is a criminal who is n ot likely to reform his way of life till stringent measures are taken against him and his activities in the area of NCT of Delhi are calculated to cause harm, danger and alarm to the respectable citizens. Moreover, unless he is weaned of his present company, he is not likely to reform himsel f and start a normal life, his continuous presence in the area leads to alarm and danger, constant source of tension and disturbance in the minds of law-abiding citizens of the area who have the right to lead a peaceful life. In my opinion this case is well within the scope of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and he is a fit person to be externed from the limits of the NCT of Delhi.”

48. Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, reads as under:- “47. Removal of persons about to commit offences- Whenever it appears to the Commissioner of Police- (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger of harm to person of property; or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, Chapter XVL, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 15 of 22

1860) or under Section 290 or Sections 489A to 489E (both inclusive) of that Code or in the abetment of any such offence: or (c) that such person- (i) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community; or (ii) has been found habitually intimidating other persons by acts of violence or by show of force; or (iii) habitually commits affray or breach of peace of riot, or habitually makes forcible collection of subscription or threatens people for illegal pecuniary gain for himself or for others; or (iv) has been habitually passing indecent remarks on women and girls, or teasing them by overtures, and that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Polic witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, the Commissioner of Police may, by order in writing duly served on such person, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such pers on to so conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 16 of 22

prevent violence and alarms or to remove himself outside Delhi or any part thereof, by such route and within such time as the Commissioner of Police may specify and not to enter or return to Delhi or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself.

Explanation- A person who during a period within one year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this Section has been found on not le ss than three occasions to have committed or to have been involved in any of the acts referred to in this Section shall be deemed to have habitually committed that act.”

49. The aforesaid Section defines the circumstances in which an Order of Externment may be made, which are as under:- (i) that the movement or th e· acts of any person is calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or (ii) that there are reasonable grounds that he would be engaged in the commission of an offence; or (iii) that he so desperate and dangerous that his being at large would be hazardous to the community; or (iv) that he is found habitually intimidating to other perso ns or is habitually committing affray or breach of peace; or is habitually passing indecent remarks on women.

50. The facts of the present Case and the evidence led therein, may now be considered if any of these grounds are established justifying the impugned Order.

51. The entire case of the Respondent rests on the 11 FIRs that had b een Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 17 of 22

registered against the Petitioner, which are as under:

S.No. FIR No. Under Section Police Station Status 1. 192/2000 354 IPC Lodhi Colony Acquitted 2. 511/2001 61/1/14 Excise Act Lodhi Colony Acquitted 3. 69/2004 61/1/14 Excise Act K.M. Pur Acquitted 4. 339/2004 25 Arms Act K.M. Pur Acquitted 5. 33/2006 308/323/24 IPC Lodhi Colony Acquitted 6. 186/2006 363/364- A/384/34 IPC Lodhi Colony Acquitted 7. 365/2014 323/341/506/34 IPC Lodhi Colony Acquitted 8. 141/2018 12/9/55 Gambling Act Lodhi Colony The Petitioner appeared without any legal aid an was advised to deposit the fine of Rs.500/-.

52. The perusal of the list of the cases, shows that one Case of 354 IPC was registered in 2000 and two Cases of Section 61/1/14 of Ex cise Act in Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 18 of 22

the year 2001 and 2004; another Case of 25 Arms Act was registered in the year 2004. Thereafter, it was in the year 2006 that two Cases un der Section 363/364-A/384/34 of IPC, were registered.

53. Thereafter, the next FIR got registered in the year 2014 under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC. After a gap of four years, one case of gambli ng under Section 12/9/55 of Gambling Act, was registered in the year 201 8, in which he pleaded guilty and deposited a fine of Rs.500/-.

54. Thereafter, there was a lull period for five years till 2023 when a n FIR under Section 324 and another FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act, got registered. The Petitioner stands acquitted in all the cases t hat were registered till the year 2014.

55. It is interesting to note that there were two Cases registered in the year 2004, followed by two Cases in 2006 and thereafter, one Cas e in 2014 and then one Case in 2018. Some of the offences are under the Excise Act and Gambling Act. It is significant to observe the gap bet ween the years during which, the offences have allegedly have been committed a nd also the nature of the offences for which, these FIRs were registered.

56. Pertinently, all the Cases have ended in acquittal and there is nothing on record to show that the acquittal were on account of any t hreat to the witness or for any act attributable to the Petitioner. There has t o be proper evidentiary material from where a satisfaction could be drawn that an y of Clauses as mentioned in Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1 978, are established leading to an inference of apprehension regarding the safety and property of the persons living therein the area.

57. The two witnesses, namely, PW-1, Inspector Rajesh Kumar, SHO, Police Station Lodhi Colony and Head Constable, Rinku No. 31 9/SD, Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 19 of 22

MHC(R) of Police Station Lodhi Colony, have been examined and the only evidence which has been brought on record, are the list of Criminal Cases that have been registered over a period of 18 years against him. Merel y because some Cases got registered against the Petitioner, would no t suffice or justify the issuance of the Externment Order.

58. No evidence has been produced to show that he is a person so desperate or dangerous that he is hazardous to the community if allowed to be at large, or is engaged in commission of an offence , or that his movements or acts are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property . Moreover, merely from the list of Cases, it cannot be concluded that he is habituated to intimidate or commit affray or breach of peace or of passing indecent remarks on the women.

59. Term „Habitual‟ has been explained in Explanation 2 of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, which reads as under:- “Explanation: A person who during a period within one year immediately preceding the commencement of an action under this Section has been found on not less than thr ee occasions to have committed or to have been invoked in any o f the acts referred to in this Section shall be deemed to ha ve habitually committed that act.”

60. From the very definition of the word „habitual,‟ it is evident that in the year preceding to the commencement of an action, it must be foun d that on not less than three occasions, the person had committed or was involved in any of the acts referred to in this Section. Pertinently, as p er the case of the Respondent itself, there is no such incident reported i n the last preceding year. Pertinently, there is a reference to two FIRs, namely, Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 20 of 22

195/2023 under Section 324/34 IPC registered at Police Stati on Lodhi Colony and FIR No. 297/2023 under Section 25 of Arms Act regis tered at Police Station Lodhi Colony.

61. The Respondent has vehemently contended that even in the year 2024 vide FIR No. 26/2024 under Section 188 IPC, Police Station Lodhi Colony, was registered. However, it is not in dispute that it was only in respect of the non-verification of the tenant inducted by the Petitioner in his premises. It‟s a technical offence and in no way reflects the criminal propensity of the Petitioner.

62. It is further noted in the Externment Order that the Applican t was a Bad Character (B.C.) of Bundle- A of Police Station Lodhi Colon y, Delhi.

However, this fact of he being a bad character was not mentioned in Notice under Section 50 that was served upon him and has not been given any opportunity to counter the same. Moreover, no details of the Ord er by which he was declared a Bad Character or the circumstances in whi ch he was put in Bundle-A, has been explained. It is evident from the perusal of the Impugned Order that this fact has been mentioned inc identally only to make out a Case, where none exists. There is nothing on record t o show that he is indulging in continuous and persistent acti vities, which are hazardous to the society.

63. In the case of Prem Chand vs. Union of India, 1981 (1) SCC 639, it has been held that mere apprehension of the Respondent, is no t sufficient, there must be a clear and present danger based upon credible material, which shows that the movements and the acts of the Petitioner, are alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence. Likewise, there must be sufficient reason to believe that the person proceeded against, is so despera te and Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 21 of 22

dangerous that his mere presence in the locality would be hazard ous to the society and its safety.

64. Much has been argued on behalf of the Respondent that there are two Statements recorded of the persons, which have been put in the sealed cover, to show the kind of threats that are being extended by th e Petitioner.

Significantly, in the Order Sheet, there is no mention whatsoever of the Statements of the witnesses having been recorded and kept in a sealed cover. It finds mention only in the Impugned Order, which creates a doubt about their genuineness and they being procured by the Respondents only to justify their acts.

65. Furthermore, two witnesses in their Statements, have merely sta ted that there are continuous threats being extended by the Petit ioner to them and creating an atmosphere of fear. However, on what basis, in what circumstances and by what acts, such threats are being extended, are significantly missing. Merely making bald assertions not su pported by any specific, cannot be considered as any kind of cogent evidence.

66. It is also pertinent to refer to the submissions of the Petiti oner that since 2018. He stands rehabilitated and and is settled with hi s wife and children. He has been working in a Firm namely New Concept Serv ices since 2018, which is corroborated by his Form-16 issued by the Firm.

67. It has been rightly stated by the Petitioner that such Order o f Externment which has no basis, only leads to deprivation o f his right to livelihood and prevents him from taking care of his wife and ch ildren for whom, he is the sole source of income. The Orders of Externmen t needs to be made with some responsibility, to address the objective with which Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, has been inserted. While it canno t be Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:16.10.2025 11:09:42 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(CRL) 2349/2025 Page 22 of 22

overlooked that an onerous task of maintaining law and order a nd peace in Society, rests on the Police, but at the same time, it canno t be used to deprive persons of their liberty and right to livelihood, o n the grounds which are totally unsubstantiated.

68. While concluding, it may be noted that the Impugned Order of the Externment is a mechanical Order, which merely reproduces the lang uage of the Section and is not supported by evidence of any kin d. It is clearly an Order, which does not establish the circumstances as detaile d in Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, which would merit the Externment of t he Petitioner.

69. The Petition is, therefore, allowed and the Externment Order dat ed 24.05.2025 is hereby, quashed. The next date of hearing stands cancelled.

70. The Petition is accordingly disposed of, along with pending Application(s), if any.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

OCTOBER 10, 2025/RS

Signed By:VIKAS

ARORA

Signing Date:16.10.2025

11:09:42

Signature Not Verified