Judgment wp810.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 810 OF 2025. Aman Anwar Khan, Age 25 years, Occupation – Private, resident of Indira Nagar, Kandri, Kanhan, Tahsil Parseoni, District Nagpur. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.State of Maharashtra, through its Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Gramin, Nagpur. 2.State of Maharashtra, through its Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS . --------------------------------- Mr. S. Meshram, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B.M. Lonare, A.P.P. for Respondents. ---------------------------------- CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 03, 2025. Rgd. 2025:BHC-NAG:11400 Judgment wp810.25 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner came to be externed from entering Nagpur Rural and Nagpur City (District) for a period of one year by the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Nagpur. By this order, the petitioner was externed by the Superintendent of Police in exercise of powers under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Against which an appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2025. The basis for externment are the following crimes registered against the petitioner and other two persons. Sr. No. Police Station Crime No. & Sections Date and time. Status. 1. Kanhan. C.R.No.358/2020, Sections 143, 147, 149, 353, 307, 333, 34 of IPC, Sections 4/25 of Arms Act. 04.12.2015 at 23.10 hrs. Pending Adjudication. Rgd. Judgment wp810.25 3 2. Kanhan. C.R.No.209/2020, Section 12 of Maharashtra Gambling Act. 28.04.2020 at 23.39 hrs. Pending Adjudication. 3. Kanhan. C.R.No.299/2020, Section 12 of Maharashtra Gambling Act. 18.07.2015 at 20.29 hrs. Pending Adjudication. 4. Kanhan. C.R.No.507/2020, Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 354(B), 294, 506, 427 of IPC. 30.08.2022 Pending Adjudication. 5. Kanhan. C.R.No.50/2023, Section 371 of IPC. 31.01.2023 at 20.07 hrs. Pending Adjudication. 6. Kanhan. C.R.No.318/2024, Sections 143, 144, 341, 294, 427 of IPC, Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 09.04.2024 Under investigation. 3. One Kamlesh Harishchandra Meshram, is shown as a Gang leader. It appears from the record that four cases are registered in the year 2020, one in the year 2023 and lastly one case i.e. Crime No.318/2024, which came to be registered in the year 2024, were taken into consideration by the externing authority. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioners has invited my Rgd. Judgment wp810.25 4 attention to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Kamlesh Harishchandra Meshram .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.1026/2024 – decided on 18.02.2025), which was filed by the alleged gang leader. In the aforesaid judgment, he had challenged the separate externment order passed against him, which was passed on the basis of the offences of the year 2020, which are also considered in the present impugned order. While considering the order of externment, this Court has taken into consideration that the externment is based on the offences which are of the year 2020, which are stale in nature. It was further observed that it was expected from the externing authority to demonstrate that the offences was committed by the petitioner as a gang member. It was further observed that “stale offences which are almost more than nine years old, the order of externment cannot be said to be sustainable.” 5. The learned A.P.P. supports the order and submits that this Court has not considered the last offence which was committed in the year 2024, which was registered at Kanhan Police Station bearing Crime No.318/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, Rgd. Judgment wp810.25 5 144, 341, 294, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act. He further submits that this crime was registered against all the three persons against whom externment order was passed. He has invited my attention to the Crime No.318/2024, which shows name of the present petitioner, as well as Kapil Ashok Rangari and Kamlesh Harischandra Meshram, and submits that they are involved in the said crime which is of serious nature. He further submits that a detail order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, considering the activities of the present petitioner, and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions of both the parties, it appears that the last crime committed was of the year 2024 i.e. Crime No.318/2024. So far as this offence is concerned, in the chart it is shown that the offence is registered on 09.05.2024, however, perusal of the chart shows that the said crime is registered against gang leader Kamlesh Harishchandra Meshram, as well as Kapil and present petitioner. The chart further shows that the offence is registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code only against Rgd. Judgment wp810.25 6 Kamlesh Meshram. However, perusal of the chart shows that against the petitioner in Crime No.318/2024, no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is shown to be registered even though the crime is registered against all the three persons. It is not clear whether the offence is registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three persons. Even the reply filed by the learned A.P.P. is silent on the said registration of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of Kapil Rangari and present petitioner, under such circumstances, it could be said that whether the externing authority has applied its mind or not, and therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the externing authority has not applied its mind and mechanically passed the order. 7. Apart from that, it is to be noted that this Court while passing the order in case of Kamlesh Meshram, who was branded as gang leader, has quashed and set aside the separate externment order dated 21.10.2024, which was also passed amongst others on the basis of offences registered in the year 2020, on the ground that the externing authority has failed to demonstrate that the offence was Rgd. Judgment wp810.25 7 committed by the petitioner as a gang member and stale offences are considered. 8. Considering the observations of the Division Bench of this Court, and the fact that stale cases have been considered which are of the year 2020 and 2023, and thus, the impugned order, cannot be sustained in law. 9. It is further to be noted that the last offence which was shown to be registered against all the persons, including the petitioner i.e. Crime No.318/2024, was shown as “pending investigation”. This Court in the case of Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others (2024 SCC Online Bom 442), in paragraph no.19 has observed as under : “19. The situation which thus obtains is that the externing authority had noted pendency of two cases which did not satisfy the requirement of class of cases stipulated by clause (b) and also considered the crimes which were under investigation and chargesheet had not been filed. It is trite, the crimes which are still under investigation cannot be taken into consideration as depending upon the outcome Rgd. Judgment wp810.25 8 of the investigation, the investigating agency may or may not send the accused for trial. It is true, in one of the crimes, subsequently chargesheet came to be filed. However, a submission could be advanced that the chargesheet was filed with a view to justify and support the order of externment. Reliance placed by Mr. Gupta on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ganesh Laxman Dhabale V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. appears to be well founded.” 10. Therefore, from the above it is crystal clear that both the authorities have failed to consider that the crime wherein investigation was in progress and no charge sheet has been filed, those crimes cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, considering above observations of the Division Bench of this Court, and the obsrvations in the case of Imtiyaz (supra), I am inclined to allow the present petition, hence, the following order. ORDER. 1. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. 2. The order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Rgd. Judgment wp810.25 9 Superintendent of Police (Rural), Nagpur and the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur externing the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. JUDGE Rgd.