(1) 947crwp589.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.589/2025 Ravi Ganpat Verma and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. P. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A. R. Chutke, A.P.P. for non applicant nos.1 and 2. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2025 Heard Mr. S. P. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. A. R. Chutke, learned A.P.P. for non applicant Nos. 1 and 2. 2. By order dated 28.11.2024 passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of powers under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (“Act of 1951”), nine persons suffered externment order. They were externed from Nagpur for two years. Notice under Section 59 of the Act of 1951 was issued on 24.10.2024 to 9 persons. Externee at Sr.No.1, Shubham is said to be the gang leader. The petitioners are at Sr. Nos.8 and 9 in the notice. Externment order against externee at Sr. Nos. 4 to 7 has been already quashed in four different petitions being Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1027/2024, 280/2025, 281/2025 and 285/2025. 3. It appears that while issuing notice under Section 59 (1) of the Act of 1951, respondent No.2 referred to only one common offence against the petitioners and externee named at Sr. No.7 in the notice. However, while issuing externment order under Section 55, respondent No.1 has referred to two offences. What is important is that order of externment refers to activities of gang headed by Shubham. The petitioners are said to be the gang members. There is, however, not a single offence registered and/or shown that would indicate that the petitioners, as gang members, ever acted collectively (2) 947crwp589.25 with Shubham. The order indicates commonality between externee named at Sr.No.7 in the notice and petitioners. 4. Thus, the case of respondent No.1, even if is to be accepted, one may argue that externee named at Sr.No.7 in the notice and petitioners were involved jointly in committing same crime, there is, however, no material to show that the petitioners were gang members of the gang headed by Shubham. 5. That being so, even if it is to be presumed that externee named at Sr. No.7 in the notice and petitioners acted collectively, there is no evidence that these three persons had any nexus with the gang leader i.e. Shubham. It is for this reason that other externees had successfully challenged the externment order. In view thereof, the petitioners are also entitled for the relief as extended in writ petitions mentioned above. 6. In view of above and for the reasons set out in the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos.1027/2024, 280/2025, 281/2025 and 285/2025, as also what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus: “Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 (Annxure “B”) passed by respondent No.1 learned Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone – I, Nagpur thereby ordering the externment of petitioners from Nagpur City and District for a period of 2 years.” The writ petition is disposed of. (M. M. Nerlikar, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.) Kahale