Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
G.A. SANAP, J.
Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar, S/o. Gurucharansingh Lohiya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 756 Of 2022
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Section 56, (1), (a)&(b), 142, 135 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3, 4, 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 399, 402 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 110, 151 - Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 - Section 65(e) - Order of externment - Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity - Petitioner has challenged order of externment whereby respondent No.1 confirmed order of externment in appeal – Held, If a police officer apprehends a design of a person to commit any cognizable offence, police officer can arrest him without order from Magistrate - It further provides that if it appears to such officer that commission of offence cannot be otherwise prevented, said person can be detained in custody for a total period of thirty days form date of arrest of such person as per order of Magistrate - Externment order apart from making inroad on fundamental right of movement makes said person live separate from his family - Similarly, said order can deprive said person of his livelihood - In order to justify externment for maximum period of two years, authority is required to consider objective material to record subjective satisfaction on this point - Externment order passed by respondent No.2 and order passed by Appellate Authority confirming externment order, cannot be sustained - Orders deserve to be set aside - Petition allowed.
Key Points: - The externment order must be based on objective material recording subjective satisfaction under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. (!) - Five of the seven relied crimes (Nos. 4–7 under Prohibition Act) could not be considered to justify externment; the court excludes those when forming subjective satisfaction. [4000695080012] - The two IPC crimes (Nos. 2 and 3) must have a live link to the externment proceeding; stale crimes or lack of live link can render the order invalid. [4000695080013] - The notice dated 08.01.2022 was found vague/cryptic and failed to provide particulars, undermining due process; proper show-cause and material disclosure are required. [4000695080014] - The statements of confidential witnesses must be reproduced and verified properly; failure to do so undermines the externment order. [4000695080015] - The bond under Cr.P.C. Section 110 of 2020 and lack of consideration of post-bond conduct undermined the subjective satisfaction; non-consideration dented the order. [4000695080016] - The appellate authority correctly found that the subjective satisfaction was based on objective material, but the tribunal still set aside due to overall defects; externment order and confirmation set aside. [4000695080011][4000695080019] - The maximum externment period is two years; the court noted excessiveness if not justified with objective material and proper scope. [4000695080010][4000695080018] - The court referenced Deepak Laxman Dongre and Pandharinath Rangnekar precedents regarding standards for externment and live link. [4000695080011] - The writ petition is allowed; externment orders quashed and set aside. [4000695080019]
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his externment dated 11.04.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-3, Nagpur City, Nagpur as well as the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by respondent No.1 – Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, whereby the respondent No.1 confirmed the order of externment in appeal.
4. The respondent No.2, by invoking the provisions of Section 56 Sub-section (1), clauses (a)&(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1951” for short), ordered externment of the petitioner and directed him to remove himself outside the limits of Nagpur District for a period of two years. In order to arrive at subjective satisfaction to warrant the order of externment against the petitioner, the respondent No.2 relied upon seven crimes registered against the petitioner at Panchpaoli police station, Nagpur. The details of the crimes are as under :
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Crime No. | Date | Sections | Case status |
| 1. | Panchpaoli | 3070/2018 | 30.03.2018 | 142 of Mah. Police Act | Pending in Court |
| 2. | Panchpaoli | 139/2018 | 20.06.2018 | 399, 402 of IPC, 4/25 of Arms Act r/w. 135, 142 of Mah. Police Act | 399, 402 of IPC, 4/25 of Arms Act |
| 3. | Panchpaoli | 42/2019 | 16.01.2019 | 399, 402 of IPC, r/w 3/25, 4/25 of Arms Act, r/w. 135 of Mah. Police Act | Pending in Court |
| 4. | Panchpaoli | 353/2021 | 05.06.2021 | 65(e) Prohibition Act | Pending in Court |
| 5. | Panchpaoli | 521/2021 | 21.07.2021 | 65(e) Prohibition Act | Under police investigation |
| 6. | Panchpaoli | 610/2021 | 07.08.2021 | 65(e) Prohibition Act | Pending in Court |
| 7. | Panchpaoli | 632/2021 | 08.08.2021 | 65(e) Prohibition Act | Pending in Court |
PREVENTIVE ACTIONS
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Crime No. | Section | Result |
| 1. | Panchpaoli | 66/2020 | 110 of Cr.P.C | On 09/12/2020, the bond of Rs.20,000/- has been taken as final bond for two years. |
5. Besides above crimes, the respondent No.2 placed heavy reliance upon the confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses. On the basis of the crimes and the confidential in-camera statements of the witnesses, the respondent No.2 recorded a satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are fully covered under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Act of 1951 and as such warranting his externment.
6. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of his externment dated 11.04.2022 before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 found that subjective satisfaction for the externment of the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the objective material placed on record. His appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.
7. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhangde learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H. D. Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the record and proceedings.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that out of the seven crimes relied upon to form the subjective satisfaction four crimes are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Prohibition Act” for short). One crime is under the Act of 1951. Learned Advocate submitted that the crimes at Sr. Nos.2 and 3 are the only crimes registered under the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate submitted that the first crime registered under the Indian Penal Code was on 20.06.2018 and the second crime was registered on 16.01.2019. Learned Advocate submitted that the offences registered against the petitioner under the Prohibition Act and under the Act of 1951 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of passing an externment order. Learned Advocate further submitted t
An externment order must be based on objective material, comply with legal requirements, and be justified by extraordinary circumstances. It must also consider the execution and breach of bonds for g....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an externment order must be based on subjective satisfaction arrived at on the basis of objective material, and strict compliance with the leg....
The subjective satisfaction for externment must be based on objective material, and the order must pass all legal tests, including strict compliance with the relevant act and consideration of extraor....
The subjective satisfaction for passing an externment order must be based on objective material, and crimes under the Prohibition Act should not be considered. The order must pass all legal tests and....
The court established that externment orders require a clear connection to recent criminal activity and strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect individual liberties.
Externment orders under the Maharashtra Police Act must be supported by objective evidence and cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to free movement without justifiable grounds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
