Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2025 … Sonal S/o Shankar Gogula, Aged 27 years, R/o Behind Vidya Talkies, Ghugus, District : Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER - - V E R S U S - - 1] Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur. 2] Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2025 Shri Rajesh @ Rajanna S/o Narsingh Kankatwar, Aged 32 years, R/o Behind Vidya Talkies, Ghugus, District : Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER PIYUSH MAHAJAN 2025:BHC-NAG:9013 Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 2 - - V E R S U S - - 1] Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur. 2] Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. F.H. Haidari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. S.V.Kolhe, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2025. COMMON JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. S.V. Kolhe, learned A.P.P. waives service for respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. Both petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 02/10/2024 PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 3 passed by respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur, and order dated 13/12/2024 passed by respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, wherein, the petitioners were externed from Chandrapur District for a period of two years. 4. It appears from the record that notice was issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on 18/09/2024, asking the petitioner-Sonal that why she should not be externed from Chandrapur District for a period of two years. It is further stated in the notice that she is the gang member and has committed following offences:- Sr. No. Police Station Crime No. and Date Section Charge No. Court Case No. Status 01 Chandrapur 241/2015 27.10.2015 302, 450, 34 of IPC 11/2016 28.01.2016 56/2016 26.01.2016 Pending in Court 02 Ghugus 598/2016 13.10.2016 294, 503, 34 of IPC 53/2017 24.01.2017 476/2017 27.01.2017 Pending in Court 03 Ghugus 605/2017 04.10.2017 65(A) of Maharas htra Prohibiti on Act alongwit h Section 188 of IPC 245/2017 25.11.2017 4767/2017 29.11.2017 Pending in Court PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 4 04 Ghugus 355/2018 18.07.2018 65(e), 83 of Maharas htra Prohibiti on Act alongwit h Section 188 of IPC 206/2018 05.10.2018 4609/2018 05.12.2018 Pending in Court 05 Ghugus 26/2019 25.01.2019 143, 147, 323 of IPC 27/2019 22.08.2019 2670/2019 29.08.2019 Pending in Court It is further stated in the notice that, two incamera statements were recorded, wherein, it is stated that witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner-Sonal, due to fear and terror created by the petitioner. 5. Similarly, notice was under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, to the petitioner-Rajesh on 18/09/2024, on the ground that he has committed 5 crimes and two in-camera statements were recorded against him which speaks that the activities of the petitioner-Rajesh is against the society and due to fear and terror created by the petitioner, no one is coming forward to depose against him. The following are the crimes committed by PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 5 the petitioner-Rajesh:- Sr. No. Police Station Crime No. and Date Section Charge No. Court Case No. Status 01 Ghugus 221/2020 08.09.2022 65(e), 83 of Maharashtr a Prohibition Act 128/2020 23.11.2020 2079/2020 21.12.2020 Pending in Court 02 Ghugus 10/2022 27.01.2022 341, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC 49/2022 20.06.2022 1880/2022 29.06.2022 Pending in Court 03 Ghugus 64/2022 20.02.2022 302, 120, 143, 147, 148, 107 of IPC alongwith Section 135 of Maharashtr a Police Act and Section 4, 25 of Arms Act 34/2022 17.05.2022 308/2022 19.05.2022 Pending in Court 04 Gadchand ur 160/2016 22.03.2016 65(e), 83 of Maharashtr a Prohibition Act alongwith Section 201 of IPC 192/2016 20.07.2016 209/2016 12.08.2016 Pending in Court 05 Shirpur District Yavatmal 230/2016 02.11.2016 379, 34 of IPC 02/2017 24.01.2017 09/2017 25.01.2017 Acquitta l PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 6 6. Both petitioners have filed their respective replies denying the contentions of the notice. They have relied on several Authorities in their reply pointing out to the concerned officer that the grounds which are raised for externing them cannot be sustainable, as their activities does not fall under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and the activities are not in the nature of organized crime, and therefore, they cannot be said to be members of the gang. 7. After forwarding the report to the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur, the Superintendent of Police passed the impugned order on 02/10/2024 by externing the petitioners for a period of two years from Chandrapur District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-Sonal committed last offence in the year 2019, whereas, petitioner-Rajesh committed last offence in the year 2022, and therefore, those cases cannot be considered for externing them. He further submits that in-camera statements are recorded recently in order to fill the lacunaes. He further submits that there is no proximity between the last crime PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 7 committed and the order of externment. He further submits that the activities do not fall under the category of organized crime, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be termed as members of the gang. He further submits that, in fact, after 2019 and 2022, the petitioner- Sonal and the petitioner-Rajesh, respectively, has not committed any offence, and therefore, they cannot be termed as a gang members. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the activities of the petitioners have created threat in the vicinity of District Chandrapur and they are acting in an organized manner. The respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 have considered the factual aspects before passing the order. He further submits that the cases which are registered, form the basis of the externment order, and cannot be said to be stale cases. There is proximity, as the proposal was filed for the first time on 02/09/2024, and the impugned order was passed on 02/10/2024. He further submits that in-camera statements would also disclose that the activities of petitioners are harmful to the society and due to threat and fear, no one is coming forward to depose against them. He further submits PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 8 that preventive action such as Chapter Case was initiated against the petitioners in the year 2023. He further submits that considering the materials on record, the respondent No.1 is subjectively satisfied and on the basis of objective material, placed before him, passed a detailed order by giving reasons. In Appeal filed under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the petitioners failed, and therefore, both the Authorities have considered the case in accordance with law. Accordingly, she prayed to reject both the petitions. 9. Having heard both the sides at length and considering their rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears to me that the order under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, was passed by the respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police against as many as four persons. One Shiva @ Shivaji Vasanta Gonewar, was shown as a gang leader. Said Shiva has committed near about eight crimes. In some of the crimes, petitioners are involved. It seems from the record that petitioner-Sonal is having four offences registered against her, which are committed in between 2016 to PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 9 2019. So far as, petitioner-Rajesh is concerned, he is having three offences registered against him, which are committed in between 2020 to 2022. Both of them have committed their last crime in the year 2019 and 2022, respectively. So far as Crime against Sonal is concerned, it was registered as Crime No.26/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on 25/01/2019. Similarly, against Rajesh, Crime No. 64/2022 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120, 143, 147, 148 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 on 20/02/2022. Both these cases are pending with the Court. As was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offence committed in the year 2019 and 2022 cannot be taken into consideration for externing the petitioners as those cases are not having proximity with the order of the externment. It would be useful to refer to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pratik Vs Divisional Commissioner and Others, 2023 SCC Online Bom 87, wherein, it is specifically held that stale cases having no proximity with the order of the externment PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 10 cannot form the basis to pass the order of externment. Therefore, considering the fact that the respondent No.1 has relied on the stale cases, which are registered in the year 2019 and 2022, respectively, cannot form the basis to extern the petitioners. 10. It is needless to mention that the appeals filed by the petitioner-Sonal and petitioner-Rajesh were rejected by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Forum i.e., the Divisional Commissioner also failed to take into consideration the above aspects. Merely referring to the past offences, without proper application of mind and without recording subjective satisfaction, both the Authorities have passed the impugned orders. 11. So far as incamera statements are concerned, it seems from the record that those are recorded in order to fill the gap between the last committed crime and the impugned order. It is further to be noted that in-camera statements are so vague that it does not, in any way, said to be sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. In fact, after 2019 and PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025 11 2022, there are no offences registered against the present petitioners, however, the statements shows that the petitioners alongwith others are doing illegal activities, and therefore, those statements are not sufficient and cannot be believed for the purpose of ordering externment. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order does not sustain in law. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R (i) Writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 02/10/2024 passed by respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur, and impugned order dated 13/12/2024 passed by respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ] PIYUSH MAHAJAN