The court upheld the externment orders based on the petitioner's involvement in serious criminal activities as a gang leader and the authorities' proper appreciation of the evidence on record.

JUDGMENT

Sandipkumar C. More, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2 The petitioner has fled this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.08.2021, passed by Respondent No.2 District Superintendent of Police, ahmednagar, in Externment Proceeding No. 55 of 2021 and also the order dated 18.10.2021 in Externment appeal No. 88/2021, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. Under the aforesaid orders, both the authorities have externed the present petitioner from the area of entire ahmednagar district for the period of two years.

3 Background facts of the present case are as under:

The petitioner is resident of Tangegalli, Nalegaon, ahmednagar. He is an agriculturist by profession. Respondent No.3 - Kotwali Police Station, ahmednagar, has submitted proposal against the petitioner and other members of his gang, before the Externment Offcer under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police act, 1951 (herein after referred to as 'the said act'), from 5 districts namely ahmednagar, aurangabad, Beed, Pune and Nashik, for the period of two years. accordingly, on 18.12.2020, a notice under Section 59 of the said act was served upon the petitioner and other members of his gang. The petitioner replied the said notice. However, Respondent No.2, on 06.08.2021, passed an order of externment against the petitioner and other members of his gang in Externment Proceeding No. 55 of 2021, as mentioned above.

The petitioner has challenged the said order by fling an appeal bearing Externment appeal No. 88 of 2021 under Section 60 of the said act before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. However, the said appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2021, by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik.

The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by way of fling instant writ petition.

4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders are illegal, perverse, arbitrary and passed without considering the documents on record. He further submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and also has not been convicted in any crime mentioned in the proposal. On the contrary, the petitioner is acquitted in certain cases, including RCC No. 382/2017 arising out of Crime No. 139/2017, registered with Kotwali Police Station, ahmednagar. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not at all connected with any organization/group or gang. as such, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned orders.

5 Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgments:

(i) In the case of Dipak Sudhakar Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 aLL MR (Cri) 1869;

(ii) In the case of Mohan s/o Damodar Raut & another Vs. The Superintendent of Police & others, 2021 aLL MR (Cri) 1445; and

(iii) Rohit Manoj Verma Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 DGLS (Bom.) 1983;

(iv) Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra, LaWS (SC)-2022-1-87.

6 On the contrary, on the basis of the affdavit-in-reply fled on behalf of Respondent No.2, the learned a. P. P. has strongly opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders. The learned a. P. P. has also produced before us the record of the case. The learned a. P. P. submits that there is is suffcient material against the petitioner and as such prays for dismissal of the petition.

7 admittedly, the Police Inspector of Kotwali Police Station, ahmednagar, had sent a proposal for externment of the petitioner along with other members of his gang. The order passed by the Respondent No.2 indicates the crimes registered against the petitioner and members of his gang, which are as follows: