Bombay High Court
Govind Yashwant Samudre And Others vs The Divisional Commissioner And Others on 26 August, 2025
Ethape (1) Cri.WP-85-2025
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2025
1] Mr. Govind s/o. Yashwant Samudre,
Age: 32 Years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Siddhartha Nagar, Nandurbar,
District Nandurbar.
2] Mr. Pavba s/o. Bhikan Akhade,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o. Shindagavhan, Tq. Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar.
3] Mr. Vishwajit @ Bobby Sanjay Baisane,
Age: 29 years, Occu: Education,
R/o. Samata Colony, Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar.
4] Mr. Dipak Sham Thakare,
Age: 25 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o. Chinchpada Bhilati, Tq. Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar.
5] Mr. Mukesh S/o. Madhukar Thakare,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o.: Chinchpada Bhilati, Tq. Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar.
6] Mr. Ambalal s/o. Jaising Thakare,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o. Chinchpada Bhilati, Tq. Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar. ...PETITIONERS
Ethape (2) Cri.WP-85-2025
VERSUS
1] The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
2] The Superintendent of Police,
Nandurbar, District Nandurbar.
3] The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Nandurbar Sub Division, Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar.
4] The Police Inspector,
Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr. P. D. Bachate, a/w Mr. Rahul R. Raghuwanshi, Advocates for
Petitioners.
Smt. Chaitali Chaudhari-Kutti, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4-State.
*****
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 23rd JULY 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th AUGUST 2025.
ORDER :
–
1. Heard Mr. Bachate, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and
Smt. Chaudhari-Kutti, the learned APP for Respondent-State. This
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the
parties, for final disposal.
Ethape (3) Cri.WP-85-2025
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 22 nd October
2024, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division,
Nashik, in Appeal No. 103 of 2024, thereby dismissing the appeal filed
by the petitioners under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
3. The appeal was filed challenging an order dated 8th May 2024
passed by the Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar, thereby externing
the present petitioners from Nandurbar district for a period of two years
from the date of order.
4. The facts, in short, as stated in the petition are that the present
petitioners are residents of Nandurbar. The petitioner No.1 is in private
business. Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 to 6 are the labourers. The petitioner
No.3 is a student. Some of the offences have been registered against the
petitioners. The details and status of the offences registered against the
present petitioners are as below:
Sr. Police C.R. No. and Offences Petitioner Current
No. Station No. Status
1. Upanagar C.R. No.153/2016, U/sec. 143, Petitioner Pending.
Police 332, 336, 147, 148, 149 of IPC No.1. Ethape (4) Cri.WP-85-2025 Station, and Sec. 37(1)(3), 135 of the Nandurbar. M. P. Act.
2. Nandurbar C.R. No.150/2018, U/sec. 353, Petitioner Pending
City Police 143, 323, 149 of IPC and Sec. No.1.
Station 37(1)(3) and 135 of M. P. Act.
3. Nandurbar C.R. 186/2018, U/Sec. 143, Petitioner Pending
City Police 146, 149, 353, 323, 504 and No.1.
Station 506 of IPC.
4. Nandurbar C.R. No.225/2018, U/sec.427, Petitioner Pending
City Police 435, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of No.6
Station IPC.
5. Nandurbar C.R. No. 224/2018, U/sec. 143, Petitioner Pending
City Police 146, 149, 353, 323, 504, 506 of No.4 and
Station IPC and Sec. 37(1)(3) r/w 135 6.
of M. P. Act.
6. Nandurbar C. R. No.100/2019, U/sec. 142 Petitioner Pending.
City Police of M. P. Act. No.1
Station
7. Nandurbar C. R. No.381/2019, U/sec. 353 Petitioner Pending
City Police of IPC. No.6.
Station
8. Nandurbar C.R. No. 1029/2020 U/sec. Petitioner Pending
City Police 268, 269, 270 r/w 34 of IPC No.3.
Station and 37, (1)(3) of M. P. Act.
9. Nandurbar C.R. No. 213/2020 U/sec. 160 Petitioner Pending.
City Police of IPC. No.4. Station
10 Nandurbar C.R. No.734/2021, U/Sec. 353, Petitioner Pending.
City Police 336, 337, 143, 145, 147, 149, Nos. 1, 2,
Station 268, 269, 270, 427, of IPC and 4, 5 & 6.
37(1)(3), 135 of M. P. Act.
Ethape (5) Cri.WP-85-2025
11 Nandurbar C.R. No.735/2021, U/sec. 143, Petitioner Pending.
City Police 147, 149, 435, 336, 427 of IPC Nos. 1, 3,
Station and 37(1)(3), 135 of M. P. Act. 4 & 5.
12 Nandurbar C.R. No.152/2022, U/sec. 395, Petitioner Pending.
Taluka 397 of IPC. No.6. Police Station
13 Nandurbar C.R. No.313/2022, U/sec. 394, Petitioner Pending.
Taluka 341 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3, Nos. 1 to Police 25 of Arms Act. 5. Station
14 Nandurbar C.R. No.497/2022, U/sec. 324, Petitioner Pending.
City Police 143 of IPC. Nos. 2 to Station 6.
15 Nandurbar C.R. No.310/2023, U/sec. 353, Petitioner Pending.
City Police 143, 149, 342 of IPC and Sec. Nos. 1 to
Station 37(1)(3), 135 of M. P. Act. 3.
16 Nandurbar C.R. No.320/2023, U/sec. 353, Petitioner Pending.
City Police 143, 147, 149, 504 of IPC and Nos. 1 to
Station Sec. 37(1)(3), 135 of M. P. Act. 4.
17 Nandurbar C.R. No.404/2023, U/sec. 307, Petitioner Pending.
City Police 395, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506 of Nos. 1, 3,
Station IPC. 4.
18 Nandurbar C.R. No. 19/2023, U/sec. 395, — Pending.
City Police 341, 506 of IPC.
Station
5. Till now, no conviction has been recorded in any of above cases.
However, on the basis of this, the respondent No.2, the Superintendent
Ethape (6) Cri.WP-85-2025
of Police issued a show cause notice dated 31 st March 2024 as to why no
action be taken under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The
petitioners replied the notice by communication dated 3 rd May 2024. It is
mainly contended that there is no sufficient material to initiate action of
externment against the petitioners. The offences are not of a serious
nature. They have not been convicted in any of the trial.
6. After hearing the petitioners, the respondent No.2 passed an order
dated 8th May 2025 externing the petitioners from Nandurbar district for
two years. The said order came to be challenged before the learned
Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, who confirmed the
said order. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued that
earlier there was an order of exterment taken place against the present
petitioners. The petitioners had challenged the said externment order by
filing a Writ Petition No. 642 of 2022 and other connected writ petitions.
This Court, by its judgment and order dated 3 rd October 2022, was
pleased to quash and set aside the action. While taking action on the
Ethape (7) Cri.WP-85-2025
earlier occasion, several offences which were not already considered.
This Court by considering that position, was pleased to observe that
there was no sufficient material to take action of externment. Some of
the offences have again been considered by the authorities while taking
present action, which ought not have been done.
8. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate for the
petitioners relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Police1;
(iii) Deepak Laxman Dongre Vs. The state of
Maharashtra and Ors.3;
(iv) Sumit s/o. Ramkrishna Maraskolhe Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Police Zone-1 Nagpur and anr.4
9. Learned APP, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the petition.
She submits that, in the present case, it is seen that all the petitioners
are involved in various offences, clearly showing that they are involved
1 (2021) 8 SCC 362
2 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 188
3 [2022] 8 SCR 35
4 2019 (2) Mh.L.J. 745
Ethape (8) Cri.WP-85-2025
as a gang. The authorities have properly conducted the inquiry and
passed the order. The learned Divisional Commissioner has rightly
considered all the aspects and has confirmed the order passed by the
Respondent No.2, Superintendent of Police. No interference is required.
There are 7 offences pending against most the petitioners. She further
submits that seven secret statements were recorded. In these statements,
it is stated that due to fear of the petitioners, members of general public
are not coming forward to speak against them. There is a terror like
situation in Nandurbar city. The petitioners are seasoned criminal, and
therefore, action is taken. While taking action, even the earlier action,
that was taken was also considered. There is a clear application of mind
on the part of the authorities. The principles of natural justice have been
followed. The offences would show that those are of dacoity, theft and
stone-throwing on the Government vehicles. There are chapter cases
registered where action under Sections 107 and 110 of Cr.P.C. is taken.
Though earlier action was taken of externment, the behaviour of the
petitioners is not improved. There are 18 offences considered, out of
which 9 offences are of personal nature and 9 offences are committed by
Ethape (9) Cri.WP-85-2025
the petitioners in a gang. She, therefore, submits that the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
10. In the case of Rahmat Khan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court found
that the allegations of demand for ransom by threat were concocted. The
colour is given of intense gravity. The Court found the allegations to be
doubtful, and on that basis, it was observed that action of externment
was unwarranted on the facts of that case.
11. In the case of Praful Bhausaheb Yadav (supra), the Division Bench
of this Court considered the scope of judicial review in the matters of
externment. In the case of Deepak s/o. Laxman Dongre (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the action of externment is an
extraordinary measure, which should not normally resorted to unless a
case is clearly made out for taking such action. The order of externment
has the effect of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free
movement. Such action prevents the person even from staying in his
own house. In the said case, it was argued that the offences were
registered at the instance of political person with mala-fide. The Court
Ethape ( 10 ) Cri.WP-85-2025
found substance in the contention of the person against whom action
was taken and in that view, action was set aside.
12. In the case of Sumit s/o. Ramkrishna Maraskolhe (supra), The Full
Bench of this Court was called upon to decide the following questions:
(1) Where the activities of externee are confined to specific area of
the local limits of the jurisdiction of a police station in a district
but the order of externment extends to the entire district, rural
areas and even beyond the district or districts (irrespective of the
fact that it is contiguous or not) whether such an order needs to
show the existence of material – (a) that a larger or additional
area so chosen or selected is intimately connected with the actual
area of the activities of the externee due to improved or common
means of transport and communication system, (b) that the facts
or the material warranting externment from a larger or additional
area or neighbouring area exist, and (c) that the externing
authority has applied its mind to the factors (a) and (b) while
passing an order of externment?
(2) Whether it is necessary to state in the show cause notice the
details of in-camera statements recorded by the externing
authority to reach to the satisfaction that the witnesses are not
coming forward to give evidence or depose in public against the
proposed externee due to fear of alarm, danger or harm to their
person or property?
13. Thus, the main question is when the activities are confined to
specific area of the local limits of the police station in a district, whether
the order of externment can extend to the entire district, rural areas and
Ethape ( 11 ) Cri.WP-85-2025
even beyond the district? The second question whether it is necessary to
state in the show cause notice the details of in-camera statements
recorded by the externing authority to reach to the satisfaction that the
witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence or depose in public
against the externee?
14. The Court concluded that the externment order directing a person
from much larger area than the one of his illegal activities must be based
upon some material which provides an objective criteria sufficient to the
authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction about the action. It was
also concluded that the order of externment need not necessarily refer to
the details of the material considered by it so as to show independently
that larger or additional area chosen by it is intimately connected with
the actual area. It is further concluded that the application of mind to
the material present on record by the authority passing the externment
order is necessary but any reflection of application of mind in the
externment order in a specific manner is not necessary. It is seen that if
the order discloses that the subjective satisfaction has been reached by
considering the material available on record whereby legitimate
Ethape ( 12 ) Cri.WP-85-2025
inference can be drawn. There are some other judgments pointed out.
15. In the present case, it is admitted fact that there are 18 offences
pending, out of which 9 offences are of the nature showing that those
are committed in a gang. Looking to the nature of the offences, it is seen
that most of the offences are bodily offences. On many times, action
under Sections 107 and 110 is required to be taken. Earlier action taken
against them in the year 2023 was set aside by this Court in Criminal
Writ Petition. The authorities have also considered that aspect as well.
Inspite of such, it is observed that the petitioners still continued with
such activities. It is shown that out of 11 offences, 8 offences were also
already considered in the earlier action. Some of the offences are again
considered in the impugned order.
16. The offences which are now considered in addition to earlier are
C.R. No. 320/2023 under Section 353, 143, 147, 149, 504 of IPC and
Sec. 37(1)(3), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act. C.R. No. 404/2023 for
offences under Sections 307, 395, 353, 332, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. C.R.
No. 19/2023, 395, 341, 506 of IPC. It is seen that the offences, which
Ethape ( 13 ) Cri.WP-85-2025
were not considered when the earlier order was passed, are serious in
nature. One of them under Section 307 of IPC. The offences which were
considered were also shows that those were also under Sections 353,
143, 147 etc. Still the earlier action was dropped by this Court. Though
there are 18 offences shown against the petitioners, all those are shown
to be pending and no conviction has been recorded as on today.
17. In addition to above material, there are secret statements now
considered by the authorities. This Court has considered those
statements. Those statements show that because of the threats of the
present petitioners, the members of general public are not coming
forward to give statement openly against these persons. After dropping
of the earlier proceeding, still the activities of the petitioners continued.
As discussed by the authorities, some of the members of gang are
allegedly not found on their addresses and notices could be served upon
them. The secret statements, however, are identical. This court finds that
there is some substance in the arguments of the learned APP. However,
no much grave case is made out to take drastic action against the
petitioners. No offence is yet to be proved against them. Those offences
Ethape ( 14 ) Cri.WP-85-2025
are pending since 2018. This Court finds that material is short for taking
action. This court also considered the judgments cited before this Court.
This Court finds that the material appears to be vague. This Court thus
finds merit in the writ petition.
18. Considering the overall material, this Court finds that when the
earlier action was dropped fresh material considered was not sufficient
to take action of externment. This Court is, therefore, inclined to allow
the writ petition. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
[ad_1]
Source link