sg 25.wp575-25.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.575 of 2025 Balu Dhondiba Tambe Age : 57 years, Occ: Labour, Residing Near House No.324, Jai Malhar Nagar, Bale, Near Kagad Factory, Solapur … Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone) Solapur City … Respondents ---- Mr Veerdhaval Kakade, for the petitioner. Ms Manisha R Tidke, APP, for the respondents/ State. ---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 28 January 2025. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By an order dated 24 June 2024, respondent No.3 externed the petitioner from Solapur and Osmanabad districts __________________________________________________ 28 January 2025 SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2025.01.29 00:26:05 +0530 sg 25.wp575-25.docx for a period of two years. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged his externment under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) before respondent No.2 in Externment Appeal No./SR/EA/146/2024. By an order dated 30 October 2024, after evaluating the material available on record, respondent No.2 declined to interfere with the externment order. Dissatisfied, the petitioner by invoking this Court’s writ jurisdiction filed the present petition. 3. Mr Veerdhaval Kakade, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the show cause notice lacks reasonable grounds to justify the petitioner’s externment. According to the learned Counsel, the externment order does not meet the requirements specified in Section 56 of the Act. The learned Counsel further submits that the authorities relied upon case Nos.226 of 2002 and 227 of 2002 where the petitioner was acquitted. The impugned order is arbitrary and lacks thoughtful consideration as it fails to establish a direct link between the alleged crimes and the petitioner’s prejudicial activities, which the externment order seeks to address. 4. Ms Manisha Tidke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents/ State, opposing the petition, cites the reasons recorded in the impugned externment orders __________________________________________________ 28 January 2025 sg 25.wp575-25.docx passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. According to the learned APP, it is essential to consider the cumulative effect of the externee’s behaviour over time on the residents, as the petitioner had instilled a sense of fear and terror among them. 5. This Court has given anxious consideration for the rival submissions and perused the records. 6. A cursory reading of the show cause notice dated 5 June 2024 indicates that the authority examined the petitioner’s criminal record, the following registered crimes which are central to the authority’s satisfaction in passing the externment order: Sr No. Police Station CR No. and Sections Status 01. Faujdar Chawdi CR No.226/2002 Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 436, 336, 427, 295(A) of IPC read with Section 135 of the Act. Acquitted 02. Faujdar Chawdi CR No.227/2002 Sections 143, 147, 436, 437 of IPC read with Section 135 of the Act. Acquitted 03. Faujdar Chawdi CR No.6339/2003 Section 66(b) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. Sub-judice __________________________________________________ 28 January 2025 sg 25.wp575-25.docx 04. Faujdar Chawdi CR No.453/2015 Sections 325, 504, 506, read with 34 of IPC. Sub-judice 05. Faujdar Chawdi CR No.969/2020 Section 65(E) of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. Sub-judice 06. Faujdar Chawdi CR No.154/2024 Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 326, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. Under investigation 7. Out of these offences, in the offence at Serial Nos.1 and 2 above, the petitioner was acquitted. For the offence at Serial No.3, the case appears to be sub-judice, however, the case was never committed to the Court and no charge sheet was filed. The offences at Serial Nos.3 and 5 are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, and the offence at Serial No.6 is under investigation. The offences at Serial Nos.1 to 4 are registered between 2002 and 2015, and have now become stale. The record does not indicate if any live link exists between the registration of these offences and the order of externment. That apart, it remains unclear why the petitioner was externed from Osmanabad district when the offences were only registered at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station. Additionally, the impugned order of externment seems to have been passed in haste. __________________________________________________ 28 January 2025 sg 25.wp575-25.docx 8. In light of the above, the impugned orders dated 24 June 2024 and 30 October 2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (R.N. Laddha, J.) __________________________________________________ 28 January 2025