Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 769 OF 2025 … Ramnaresh s/o Raghunandan Patel, Aged: 45, Occ: Business, R/o: Kachipura Basti, Near Poultry farm, Police Chowki, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER - - V E R S U S - - 1] Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, (Zone no. 1), Office at: Above Ranapratap Nagar, Police Station, Ring Rd, Near NIT Garden, Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra - 440022. 2] Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sonegaon, Nagpur Office at: Wardha Road, Near Airport, Sonegaon P.S., Maharashtra, 440005. 3] State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. 4] Divisional Commissioner, Old Secretary Building, PIYUSH MAHAJAN 2025:BHC-NAG:10506 Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 2 Samaj Kalyan Office Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur, 440001 ... RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.A. Potnis, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B.M. Lonare, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone No. 1), Nagpur, has passed the order of externment under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. He further submits that the order was passed without due consideration of the fact that the offences registered in the year 2008, 2017, 2019, and 2023 were taken into consideration while passing the impugned PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 3 order. He specifically points out that Crime No. 11/2023 pertains to a personal dispute arising from a family matter, and therefore, it cannot form the basis for the externment of the petitioner. 3. He further submits that only Crime No. 205/2008 is common crime, committed along with other individuals, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is part of a gang solely based on this one offence. So far as the other crimes are concerned, there is no live link connecting them to the petitioner in a way that would justify externment. In light of this, the counsel prays that the order of externment, which mandates the petitioner’s removal from Nagpur District for two years, be quashed. 4. The counsel also submits that the petitioner cannot be termed as a gang member based on the allegations. Moreover, he submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 4 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, without properly considering the fact that the offences considered for passing of the externment order are stale offences. Therefore, he prays that the petition be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) submits that the petitioner is indeed a member of a gang. The petitioner has been involved in serious criminal activities since 2008. The A.P.P. also pointed out that the most recent crime, Crime No. 11/2023, was registered under Sections 324, 504, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with the F.I.R. being lodged on 27/01/2023. The order of externment was passed on 12/11/2024, thereby establishing a live link between the last offence committed and passing of the impugned order. The A.P.P. further submits that there is a concurrent finding of facts regarding the externment. Both the Authorities, after subjectively satisfying themselves, PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 5 have passed the externment order. Therefore, the A.P.P. prays that the present application be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It is not in dispute that only one crime, namely Crime No. 205/2008, is common amongst all the alleged members of the gang. It further appears that the other crimes relied upon by respondent No. 1 include Crime No. 366/2019, which was registered under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Crime No. 3029/2017, registered under Section 283 of the IPC; Crime No. 3005/2017, registered under Section 283 of the IPC; Crime No. 205/2008, registered under Sections 326, 394, read with Section 34 of the IPC; and Crime No. 11/2023, registered under Sections 324, 504, read with Section 34 of the IPC. 7. From the date of registration of all these offences, there is no doubt that respondent No.1 has considered stale offences. However, even offence committed in the year 2008, in PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 6 which all the accused persons are involved, cannot be said to establish membership in a gang. Moreover, the term ‘gang’ cannot be applied merely on the basis of one offence registered in 2008. Insofar as the other offences, including the common offence is concerned, they were registered a long time ago and do not have any live link to justify the externment of the petitioner. These offences, therefore, can be classified as stale offences. Furthermore, it is necessary to mention that respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the fact that a live link is required for the purpose of externment. Merely listing the offences in the externment order does not satisfy the requirement of subjective satisfaction based on objective material. In fact, respondent No.1 ought to have applied his mind thoroughly and passed the order accordingly. It is evident that, considering the period from the date of registration of the F.I.R. to the date of the order, there is no live link, and, therefore, in my opinion, the live link has been effectively snapped. PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 7 8. It is surprising, that respondent No.1 has considered a crime which was registered in the year 2008 for the purposes of externment. This reflects a clear example of non-application of mind. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the petitioner was externed for a period of two years, yet no reasoning was provided for such an excessive period of externment. When the petitioner filed an appeal, it was expected that respondent No.4 would re-evaluate the matter, as an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and requires re-appreciation of the facts. Instead, respondent No. 4 passed the order mechanically without considering all the relevant factors. Both authorities have failed to consider critical aspects of the case. In this view of the matter, the orders dated 12/11/2024 and 04/09/2025 cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed; (ii) The order dated 12/11/2024 passed by the Deputy PIYUSH MAHAJAN Judgment 46-Cr.WP-769-2025 8 Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, and the order dated 04/09/2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ] PIYUSH MAHAJAN