IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that externment orders require clear evidence of gang activity and a direct link to public danger, which was lacking in this case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition was heard finally with the consent of the respective counsels.

2. The petitioner has impugned the externment order of Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon dated 25.11.2023 passed in Outward No.7019/Stagusha/Haddparaadesh/2023 and the order of the Divisional Commissioner Nashik passed in Haddpar Appeal No.110/2023 dated 13.03.2024.

3. The Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch Jalgaon, had placed a proposal of externment of the petitioner and the members of his gang under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act (‘The Act’ for short). The Superintendent of Police sent the proposal to the Sub Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O. for short) Jalgaon for inquiry. The SDPO issued the show cause notices to the petitioner. They have submitted their explanation on 13.07.2023. The SDPO placed the proposal before the Superintendent of Police Jalgaon in the month of August, 2023 to extern the applicant and his gang members for two years from Jalgaon District.

4. The Superintendent of Police Jalgaon again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. All the externees filed their joint reply.

In sum and substance, their explanation was that they were falsely implicated in the crime. All the externees were the joint family members even then a false notice of forming a gang was issued. The show-cause notice is illegal. Before issuing the notice, no inquiry was done. They have made allegations against one PSI Pradeep Chandelgar, that he was asking for a bribe to them for not taking serious action against them in a crime registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was a quarrel between two groups. The opposite party had also caused the injury to his father by chopper. Even then, the said PSI registered the crime under Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 327 or 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was asking for ransom to them. He was also asking bribe for not filing the chapter case against them. The police were taking action at the instance of one Mahesh Govinda Choudhary. On his instance Crime No.44 of 2023 was registered for attempt to commit murder and forming an unlawful assembly. The false evidence was created against them. They had no any gang. Therefore, it cannot be said that they were causing or calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by them. There was no satisfactory material before the authority to take stringent action under Section 55 of the Act. The petitioner no.1 is deliberately shown as the leader of the gang.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that both authorities did not apply the mind. The impugned order was passed after five months. That shows that there was no link and proximity in registering the crimes and passing the externment orders. Only one offence was registered against them. Two offences were registered against petitioner no.2 However, he was acquitted in that crime after the show cause notice. The camera statement of the witnesses were not examined. However, wrong findings regarding the camera witnesses were recorded. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of Iqbaluddin Ziauddin Pirzade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2298.

6. Per contra, the learned APP argued that Section 55 of the Act has been complied with. All the petitioners were committing crime by forming a gang. To form a gang, it is not essential that a gang member should be from different families. Petitioner no.2 was acquitted after the show cause notice. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. There was objective material to record the subjective satisfaction. Both orders are free from illegalities.

7. To initiate an action against an offender under Section 55 of the Act, the authority passing the externment order should satisfy that there were communality of the actions of several persons joint togeth