Amit @ Golu Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 - Section 5 and Section 8(1) - Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita - Section 223 - Externment order - Challenge to the order of externment - Whether the order is based on credible material and satisfies the requirement of close proximity between the offence and the order - Where the person is a history sheeter and has recently uploaded objectionable content on a social platform capable of inciting communal violence, the order of externment is held to be just and proper - Non-availability of witnesses due to the terror created by the person in the society can be considered as a ground for recommendation. (Paras 6, 11)

(B) Externment Proceedings - Scope - Order must be based on clear and present danger based upon credible material which makes movements and acts of a person alarming or dangerous or fraught with violence - There must exist a reasonable ground for believing that the person is engaged in or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or in the abetment of such offence. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an externment order removing them from a district for one year. A previous externment order had been quashed by the High Court. However, a fresh case was registered against the petitioner for uploading content on a social media platform that could incite communal violence. The police recommended externment noting the petitioner's extensive criminal history, including numerous cases and prohibitory actions, and the immediate threat to law and order.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the social media posts constituted sufficient material to establish a clear and present danger of communal violence. The petitioner's status as a history sheeter and the documented inability of witnesses to testify due to fear justified the necessity of the order. Principles of natural justice were complied with through the issuance of a show-cause notice under the Act.

Issues: Whether the externment order was illegal due to the reliance on previous criminal history after a prior order was quashed, and whether the fresh grounds provided sufficient basis for the order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an externment order is valid if there is credible material showing a clear and present danger (such as inflammatory social media posts) and close proximity between the act and the order. Previous criminal history can be considered for the purpose of police recommendations to highlight the habitual nature of the offender, provided there is a fresh, credible threat to public peace.

Result: The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to externment order under M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam based on criminal history and social media post. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner argued previous cases already considered; State argued fresh offence and Facebook post justified externment. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Petition dismissed; externment order upheld. (Para 11 , 12 )

4. Can previous criminal cases already considered in a quashed externment order be used for a fresh externment order?

They can be considered only for recommendation; the order must be based on fresh material such as a new offence. (Para 10 , 11 )

5. What constitutes 'clear and present danger' under Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam?

Facebook posts that can result in communal violence constitute clear and present danger, justifying externment. (Para 10 , 11 )

6. Is it necessary that witnesses are unwilling to depose against the proposed externee?

Not necessary if there is other sufficient material, such as the Facebook posts themselves, demonstrating the threat. (Para 11 )

7. Must there be close proximity between the offence and the externment order?

Yes, but here the fresh offence on 31.08.2025 and order on 05.09.2025 satisfy the proximity requirement. (Para 6 , 11 )

ORDER :

Vishal Mishra, J.

The present petition has been filed challenging the externment order dated 05.09.2025 passed by the Collector District Khandwa in RCMS No.0026/Jila Badar/2025, whereby the petitioner has been externed from District Khandwa to nearby places for a period of one year.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier also similar externment order was passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Khandwa dated 21.02.2025 and the said order being affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Indore Division Indore, which was put to challenge by filing the writ petition being Writ Petition No.19018/2025 and the petition was allowed quashing both the orders on 17.07.2025. Now again on the same conditions taking note of all the previous criminal case registered against the petitioner, the externment order has been passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Khandwa based upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police. The challenge is made on various grounds in the writ petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore which was dismissed on 15.12.2025 without considering the grounds raised in the appeal. Counsel appearing of the petitioner has argued that the externment order passed by the District Magistrate is based upon the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police has taken note of all the previous cases which was registered against the petitioner. Despite of the fact that the earlier previous cases were already considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation inWrit petition No.19018/2025 vide order dated 17.07.2025 wherein the earlier externment order dated 21.02.2025 was passed. Thereafter, there is only one case registered against the petitioner that is Crime No.281/2025 for offence under Section 223 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita on 31.08.2025. Prior to forming an opinion against the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was involved in various illegal and anti-social activities and there is a possibility that the petitioner may indulge in commission of another offence or abatement of any offence and is creating a situation of law and order.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the cases of Deepak @ Lallu Vs. The State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.25822/2021) decided on 24.02.2022, Amit Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others , (Writ Petition No.29915/2018) decided on 26.06.2019, the judgment passed by Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra , (Criminal Writ Petition No.857/2017) decided on 27.07.2017 as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others , (Criminal Appeal No.139/2022) decided on 28.01.2022 and also in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 434 and Ramgopal Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2014 (4) MPLJ 654, Ajju @ Azam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others , (Writ Appeal No.659/2023) decided on22.05.2023. Hence, she has prayed for quashment of the exterment order.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents/State has produced the original record before this Court pertaining to the externment proceedings. It is argued that a detailed order has been passed by the District Magistrate considering the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police. He has drawn attention of this Court to the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police dated 02.09.2025 and argued that the Superintendent of Police has taken note of the previous criminal history of the petitioner as well as the recent case which has been registered against the petitioner on 31.08.2025. He has violated the order passed by the District Magistrate and has uploaded objectionable content on the Fac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vishal Mishra, J.
Amit @ Golu Jain – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 49609 of 2025
Decided On : 14-01-2026

An externment order is valid if based on credible material demonstrating a clear and present danger of violence and satisfying the requirement of close proximity between the offence and the order, regardless of previously quashed orders if fresh, credible grounds exist.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can previous criminal cases already considered in a quashed externment order be used for a fresh externment order?

5. What constitutes 'clear and present danger' under Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam?

6. Is it necessary that witnesses are unwilling to depose against the proposed externee?

7. Must there be close proximity between the offence and the externment order?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURVishal Mishra, J.Amit @ Golu Jain – PetitionerVersusThe State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – RespondentsWrit Petition No. 49609 of 2025Decided On : 14-01-2026

An externment order is valid if based on credible material demonstrating a clear and present danger of violence and satisfying the requirement of close proximity between the offence and the order, regardless of previously quashed orders if fresh, credible grounds exist.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can previous criminal cases already considered in a quashed externment order be used for a fresh externment order?

5. What constitutes 'clear and present danger' under Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam?

6. Is it necessary that witnesses are unwilling to depose against the proposed externee?

7. Must there be close proximity between the offence and the externment order?

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vishal Mishra, J.
Amit @ Golu Jain – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 49609 of 2025
Decided On : 14-01-2026