CRL.RP/1835/2025 of HARUN RASHID @ HARUN PASHA Vs SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND DCP EAST DIVISION on 22 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The revision petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 05.11.2025 passed by respondent No.1 on the ground that there are two cases against the

HC-KAR

revision petitioner inn Crime No. 163/2023, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and the same is numbered as SC No. 736/2024 and in crime No.164/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and the same is numbered as SC No. 823/2024. Both the cases are posted to 07.03.2025 and 25.03.2025. Before passing an order, notice was issued as per notice dated 19.03.2025 and the revision petitioner appeared and sought time to file objections. But no time was granted to file objections. The impugned order of externment was passed.

3. The counsel would vehemently contend that the order impugned passed by respondent No.1, invoking Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) is vague and general. The notice should contain and specifically state that what the concrete allegations are made as against the revision petitioner in the present scenario. The order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate is only on the basis of the

HC-KAR

report given by the Police Inspector by Byappanahalli PS and he has not specified with the reasons and he has been swayed away by the report given by the reporting Police Inspector. Though the past acts are relevant, in order to pass externment order, the movement of the petitioner and future apprehension of the act of revision petitioner is very much essential, and the said fact is not forthcoming in the impugned order. On close reading of the impugned order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, he has only stated that there is a report of the Police Inspector and he specified that two cases have been registered against the revision petitioner and the said cases are still pending against him and he is an anti-social element continuously and he is involved in such activities including attempt to murder cases. It is also stated that in future also, he may involve in such activities. But no specific grounds are assigned for passing an order of externment.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also vehemently contend that in a notice dated 19.03.2025, it

HC-KAR

is stated that he had caused threat to the witnesses. As a result, he was acquitted and the same is not supported by any material. Further, the counsel would submit that only two cases are pending. In one case, only case is set down for framing of charge and in another case, subsequent to passing of this order, witness summons are issued and nothing is substantiated to invoke Section 55 of the Act and impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he is a habitual offender and a rowdy element and causing life threat to the witnesses and even he is not appearing before the Court. Though he was granted bail with conditions, but he is acting against the conditions of bail order and not co-operating before the trial Court to proceed in the cases.

6. Having heard the petitioner counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and particularly taking into note of the notice issued by the respondent i.e.

HC-KAR

dated 19.03.2025, in the beginning it is mentioned that this revision petitioner is a rowdy element and in order to substantiate the same, no rowdy element proceedings are initiated against him except the proceedings of externment invoking Section 55 of the Act. Further, in the notice also, reason was assigned that he had caused life threat and as a result, he was acquitted. But no such details are given. This Court also directed the Addl. SPP to furnish the details, but counsel would submit that no such circumstances of acquittal on account of the threat to the witnesses and also counsel appearing for the petitioner categorically made the submission before this Court that two cases are pending wherein he was enlarged on bail. But case is set down for framing of charge and in another case subsequent to passing of this order only trial is fixed and question of causing any life threat to the witnesses also does not arise and reason assigned in the notice also causing of life threat to the witnesses without any basis. When the case is not set down for evidence and even

HC-KAR

charge was not framed and even witness summons are also issued subsequent to this order and the very order passed by the respondent is not sustainable in the eye of law which is nothing but an abuse of process without any material. By invoking Section 55 of the Act, making a frivolous allegation that he had caused life threat to the witnesses which has resulted in acquittal and the same is not substantiated. When such being the case, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law and order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the first respondent at the instance of the second respondent, is nothing but an abuse of process. The same is liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

a. Revision petition is allowed.

b. The impugned order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate is set aside.

HC-KAR

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22