1. Heard learned counsel Shri R.P.Joshi for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B.Jawade for the State. Rule. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order of externment dated 4.2.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Buldhana in Criminal Case No.40/2024 upheld by order dated 29.4.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in Externment Appeal No.5/2025.

3. The crime was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.353/2024 under S.115(2), S.125, S.132, S.189(2), S.190, S.191(2), S.191(3), and S.351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and under S.3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995 and under S.7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and under S.135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
Another crime was also registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.355/2024 under S.115(2), S.189(2), S.190, S.191(2), and 351(2) of the BNS 2023 and under S.135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Buldhana, on relying upon above offences, issued Show Cause Notice to the petitioner on 8.1.2025. The Show Cause Notice was replied by the petitioner by denying allegations. On the basis of statement of a police officers, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed order of externment on 4.2.2025 in proceeding in Criminal Case No.40/2024. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.5/2025 before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati which came to be dismissed on 29.4.2025 and the order of externment passed under S.56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was upheld.

5. Being aggrieved with the same, the present petition is preferred by the petitioner.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that proposal for the externment was forwarded only on the basis of statements of police officers. Statements of independent officers are not recorded. It is submitted that only on the basis of two offences, externment proceedings were initiated. The petitioner is not named in the two First Information Reports and no specific role is assigned to him.
He submitted that it is settled position of law that offences under investigation cannot be taken into consideration for externment.
He submitted that no satisfaction is recorded before passing the externment order. The Divisional Magistrate had not considered that there is no sufficient material to show that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities which would create fear in the minds of public and there is a threat to the public in vicinity. Thus, without satisfaction, the externment order is passed.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State strongly opposed the petition and submitted that considering involvement of the petitioner in two offences, proposal for externment was submitted which was allowed after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

8. After hearing both sides and perusing offences, proposal was sent to extern the petitioner from Buldhana district. He was proposed to be externed from Buldhana district for two years. Accordingly, notice was issued under S.56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner. The order passed by the authority shows that two offences are considered by the Authority to pass the externment order.
Crime bearing Crime No.355/2024 is registered under S.115(2), S.189(2), S.190, S.191(2), and S.351(2) of the BNS, 2023 wherein statements of two witnesses are considered.
In another crime bearing Crime No.353/2024 is registered under S.115(2), S.125, S.132, S.189(2), S.190, S.191(2), S.191(3), and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and under S.3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1995 and under S.7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and under S.135 of the Maharas