Externment orders require sufficient evidence and objective material to justify action under the Maharashtra Police Act; lack of such evidence renders the orders illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of both the sides.

2. The Petitioner herein takes exception to the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, Nanded under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act and order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority Respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Chh. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) thereby confirming the order of externing the Petitioner from entire Nanded District for a period of six months.

3. Brief facts leading to this petition are that by notice dated 28.12.2023, the Respondent No.4- Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nanded (City) had conveyed to the petitioner that the Incharge Police Officer of Vimantal Police Station had proposed to extern him (Sarhan Bil Ali Alkaseri) and others i.e. Kamalkishor Ganeshlal Yadav, Gurprit Singh Gulzar Sngh Khaira, Karan Singh Ragbeer Singh Shahu, the members of a gang on the ground that they are operating a gang and their presence in the area is disturbing the peace and tranquility. It is also stated therein that number of offences are registered against the Petitioner and others. Therefore, the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 28.12.2023 as to why he should not be externed. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted his reply on 29.01.2024 and contended that he is active in politics and participated in an agitation in a democratic manner for the rights of the people of Muslim community. He is neither a member of any gang nor he is operating any gang. The Petitioner further contended that one Crime bearing No. 119/2022 was registered against him but initially his name was not disclosed in the said FIR and subsequently his name was added and he was falsely implicated in the said crime. Furthermore, he was enlarged on bail in the said crime. Due to his behavior and act there is no any hazard to any property or to any person. Therefore, he prayed for revocation of above said show cause notice.

4. On 17.05.2024, the Respondent No.3- Superintendent of Police, Nanded passed an order and externed the Petitioner from the limits of Nanded district for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner challenged the same before the Respondent No.2- Appellate Authority under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act. However, on 13.08.2024, the Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order and confirmed the externment order passed by the Respondent No.3 on 17.05.2024.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that on 28.12.2023, the Respondent No.4-Sub-Divisional Police Officer issued a notice, wherein it was alleged about registration of Chapter Case No. 37/2023, however, the said chapter case was already closed and only one crime was shown against the Petitioner i.e. Crime No.119/2022 u/s 302,307,102(B), 384,109 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and 3/25, 27(2) of the Arms Act, but subsequently offence u/s 201 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (i), 3 (2), 3(4) of MCOCA Act, 1999 came to be added. On 20.07.2023, this Court passed an order in Bail Application No. 1110 of 2023 and thereby enlarged the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.119/2022 on a condition that the Petitioner shall not leave Nanded City without the permission of the Investigating Officer till the conclusion of the trial. Though, the Petitioner submitted his reply and explanation dated 29.01.2024, however, the Respondent No.4 failed to consider the same and illegally forwarded the proposal for externment.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further canvassed that though another offence punishable under Section 307 is shown to be registered against the Petitioner but no such offence is registered as against the Petitioner and as such no such trial is pending before any Court. Therefore, there is no subjective satisfaction to level the provisions of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, however, the Respondent No.2- Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without