1 42 WP 667.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 667/2025 (Shri Nitesh S/o Jivan Jangle Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone/Circle No.1, Nagpur City, Dist. Nagpur & ors.) with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 772/2025 (Shri Ashish S/o Bhucchan Zha Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur & ors.) with CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 759/2025 (Shri Rajesh S/o Jivan Jangle Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone/Circle No.1, Nagpur City, Tha. & Dist. Nagpur & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.B. Moon, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, APP for respondents (Cr.W.P.667/2025) MR. A.M. Joshi, APP for respondents (Cr.W.P.772/2025) Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, APP for respondents (Cr.W.P. 759/2025) CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 07/10/2025. Heard. 2. All these three petitions challenge the common order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 1, Nagpur City under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (“Police Act”) dated 28.11.2024, wherein total 7 persons are externed from the jurisdiction of Nagpur City so also from Nagpur District for a period of two years. The petitioners assailed this order before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur by its order dated 16.05.2025 was pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 60 of the Police Act. It appears from the record that though the proposal was moved to extern 9 persons, however as two persons are in Jail, the order came to be passed against 2 42 WP 667.25 only 7 persons. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice issued under Section 59 of the Police Act is a faulty notice as it was issued to all the petitioners commonly. He further submits that only one crime which was registered in the year 2016 i.e. Crime No.22/2016, wherein all the members are shown to be involved was taken into consideration. In the said offence, the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.530/2016 acquitted all the accused persons. Taking into consideration the said offence, the Externing Authority has committed gross error, so also, absolutely there is no application of mind. Apart from the aforementioned crime, there is no common FIR/ crime registered against the present petitioners which branded them as a gang. The reliance is placed on the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 02.05.2025 in the case of Sameer @ Pappu Narendra Mendhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. wherein one of the member of the present gang challenged the impugned common order by filing criminal writ petition No. 183/2025 which was allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of externment dated 28.11.2024. 4. Per contra, the learned APP submits that both the authorities have come to subjective satisfaction on the basis of objective material placed before them and after application of mind the impugned order has been passed. The learned APP further submits that Rajesh Jivan Jangle was shown as a gang leader, against him Crime 3 42 WP 667.25 No.194/2023 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 452, 294, 427, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Police Act. The graph of their criminal activities are increasing day by day and therefore, in order to prevent them from committing future crimes, it was necessary to pass the order of externment and accordingly, the order dated 28.11.2024 was passed. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Divisional Commissioner. I have also gone through the record. So also, upon consideration of rival submissions of both the parties, it appears that there is hardly any offence registered against all these persons which can be said to be a common thread amongst them so as to infer they are acting organized manner and therefore, they cannot be branded as the gang. Neither the activities of the petitioners as can be gathered from the contents of the FIR are in the nature of organized crime nor as a gang and therefore, branding them as gang and passing of order of externment under Section 55 of the Police Act itself is unsustainable. 6. It is further to be noted that the order of externment is passed on 28.11.2024, whereas Crime No. 194/2023 was registered on 24.04.2023 against gang leader Rajesh Jivan Jangle, it can be said that there is no live-link between passing of the order and the registration of the FIR. As almost after more than one and half year, 4 42 WP 667.25 order of externment was passed. On this ground also impugned orders do not sustain. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the case of Sameer @ Pappu Narendra Mendhe which was filed by one of the externee from this common order, the Division Bench of this Court has observed in para 7 and 8 which read as under :- “7. It is borne out of the record and also not disputed that the only offence which can be termed as common along with other gang members being Crime No.22/2016, in which the petitioner secured acquittal on 01.02.2023. No doubt, the said order of acquittal was not a part of the record of the authority while passing the order of externment. However, we must be sensitive to the constitutional right of the petitioner as the order of externment violates his fundamental right as the restrictions are imposed on his pre-movement. 8. Both i.e. petitioner so also the respondent authorities have failed to consider the order of acquittal delivered in Sessions Case No.530/2016 on 01.02.2023, it is informed to have been arising out of Crime No.22/2016 in which the petitioner along with other gang members have committed an offence. But for the aforesaid offence, we are informed that there are no 5 42 WP 667.25 other offences, in which the petitioner is an accused along with the other gang members. As such, we have reason to infer that the order impugned not only suffers from non application of mind but also failure to consider the material viz. the acquittal of the accused.” Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court unequivocally held that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind, but also failed to consider the material i.e. acquittal of the accused. Not only that the Division Bench in paragraph No. 9 also observed as under:- “9 Apart from above, the justification which is sought to be borne out of the record by the learned A.P.P. so as to substantiate the claim for application of mind for ordering the externment for two years cannot be inferred particularly when in support of such finding the authority passing the order of extenment has not at all recorded any subjective satisfaction.” 7. This being the position, in my view, the orders lack application of mind. Further, there are no reasons in support of findings in respect of the externment of two years and there is no material before the Externing Authority to brand the petitioners either as a leader of gang or the members of gang. 6 42 WP 667.25 8. Considering above facts, I am inclined to allow the present petitions. 9. The petitions are allowed and disposed of accordingly. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane