1 28 wp 669.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 669/2025 (Salim Kha Yasin Kha Maniyar Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravait & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Adil A. Mirza, Advocate with Mr. A.S. Ghawade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. M. Joshi, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 16/10/2025. Heard. 2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.7/2025 and also order dated 26.05.2025 passed by respondent No.5 in externment proceeding under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act (“Police Act”). 3. The petitioner was externed by the respondent No.5 Assistant District Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kelapur for a period of 6 months from the Yavatmal District under Section 56(1)(b) of the Police Act on the basis of following crimes :- अ. ्ቅ. अप ्ቅ. कलम ቅኌ्ቅ. क स नंबर / ቅኌ. गुन्ኋ᭪ची सयቝኌቝኌ १ ९२/२०२० १४३, ३४१, १८८, भाቝኌ$ सह कलम १३५ महरኚᮆ प(ቝኌलस कय ३२९/२०२० १४/१०/२०२० क(्቏* ्ቚलቝኌब 2025:BHC-NAG:11122 2 28 wp 669.25 २. ९९९/२०२२ १४३, १४७, १४८, १४९, ३२४, ३२३, ५०४, ५०६ भाቝኌ$ २२६/२०२२ २८/१२/2022 क(्቏* ्ቚलቝኌब ३ ७१५/२०२४ ३४१, ५०६ भाቝኌ$ सह कलम ४ ्ቚसर मध्य. ्ቤቝኌ0 आቝኌ2 ्ቚसर मध्यम स अधी सनं २०१७ १२८७/२०२४ २१/१०/२०२४ क(्቏* ्ቚलቝኌब So also, the preventive action taken against the petitioner are as follows:- अ. ्ቅ. इ गुशा ्ቅ. कलम ቝኌቝኌ १. ९००/२०२२ १०७, ११६(३) सआरपस - २. २३/२०२२ १०७, ११६(३) सआरपस - 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of externment is passed on the basis of three crimes. He submits that two crimes out of those three crimes are registered in the year 2020 and 2022 respectively. Third crime was committed and registered in the year 2024, more specifically on 23.06.2024. So far as all these three crimes are concerned, those are registered long back and the petitioner was externed on 26.05.2025. Therefore, there is no live-link between the last committed crime and the order of the externment. He further submits that stale crimes of the years 2020 and 2022 are taken into consideration and according to him, these cannot form basis for externing the petitioner. The very object of the externment would be frustrated, if those offences are considered. So far as Crime No. 715/2024 which is registered on 23.06.2024 is concerned, the same 3 28 wp 669.25 would not be sufficient to extern the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice under Section 59 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (‘SDPO’), however it does not show whether in- camera statements are recorded or not. Under such circumstances, if the order is perused, the same would reflect that in-camera statements are recorded, however in the notice dated 11.11.2024 issued by the SDPO does not contain the same and therefore, he submits that it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice as he was not able to reply to the said statement and accordingly he prayed that the entire proceedings are vitiated as the case would not fall under Section 56(1)(b) of the Police Act. 5. On the other hand, learned APP submits that there is live-link between the last committed crime and the order passed therein. The petitioner is a notorious person and his activities are harmful to the Society. He invited my attention to the FIR No.715/2024 registered for the offence under Sections 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the the Maharashtra Media Persons and Media Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage or Loss to Property) Act, 2017. He further submits that after a detailed inquiry, a report was submitted by the SDPO recommending externment for a period of 2 years. The Externing Authority after considering the entire material, has subjectively been satisfied and thereafter passed the order. 4 28 wp 669.25 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP, it appears that the externment order is based on thee crimes. The first crime was committed in the year 2020, whereas second crime was committed in the year 2022 and third crime was committed in the year 2024. All these three crimes are committed after interval of two years. It is to be noted that the last crime was committed on 23.06.2024, however the order was passed on 26.05.2025 i.e. almost after one year. After perusal of the original record, it appears that proposal was moved on 16.08.2024. The Proposal was sent to the SDPO for inquiry under Section 59 of the Police Act on 30.08.2024. Further, it appears that the report was sent by the SDPO on 15.01.2025 i.e. almost after five months and the externment order thereafter was passed after almost four and half months. If the above period is considered, under such circumstances, it would be easy to gather that there is no live-link firstly between the crimes which are committed in the year 2020, 2022 and 2024, secondly there is no live link between the last committed offence i.e. on 23.06.2024 and the externment order dated 26.05.2025. It is also to be noted that inquiry conducted by the SDPO has taken almost five months. From all these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Externing Authority has failed to consider the live- link between the last committed offence and the order of externment. 5 28 wp 669.25 7. It is a matter of fact that the notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.11.2024 under Section 59 of the Police Act. Upon perusal of the notice, it only shows the tabular chart of crimes committed by the petitioner, however there is no gist of the crimes which are committed rather to say, there are no contents of the FIR. Secondly, the notice also does not contain about recording of in-camera statements. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was not able to present his case before the SDPO and therefore, the very purpose of conducting an inquiry under Section 59 of the Police Act is vitiated. It is to be noted that though the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 passed by respondent No.5 goes to show that statements are verified and recorded, however, the same does not find in the notice contemplated under Section 59 of the Police Act. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no compliance of Section 59 of the Police Act, as the petitioner has been denied opportunity of hearing which is contemplated under section 59 of the Police Act. Further, the live-link is snapped as observed above. 9. It appears that the petitioner has preferred the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 60 of the Police Act, however whatever has been observed above, has not been considered by the Divisional Commissioner and the order has been passed mechanically. The appeal is an important right of the appellant. This right cannot be frustrated when the personal liberty of the petitioner is at stake, therefore the Appellate Authority has 6 28 wp 669.25 failed to consider all the above aspects which are observed by this Court. Under such circumstance, this Court passes the following order:- (I) Petition is allowed. (II) Order dated 16.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.7/2025 and also order dated 26.05.2025 passed by respondent No.5 in externment proceedings under Section 55 of the Police Act are hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane