1 / 6 12.wp860.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 860 OF 2025 Yuvraj Ramhari Karemore Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thru. Superintendent of Police, Wardha and Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Ganesh S. Umale, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 26.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3, Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, wherein the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Wardha externing the petitioner from Wardha District for two years is confirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises two grounds for challenging the impugned orders. The first ground is that while passing the order, the externing authority has not applied its mind, and there are no reasons in the order to show what has prompted the Prity 2 / 6 12.wp860.2025 authority to extern the petitioner for two years which is maximum period provided for extenrment. The second ground is that the in-camera statements recorded by the sponsoring authority goes to show that those are word to word identical to each other. 4. The learned APP for the respondents submits that the petitioner, along with the others are involved in the theft of the sand, and there are five crimes registered against the petitioner. He submits that considering the nature of offences committed along with others, Superintendent of Police, thought it fit to extern the petitioner by invoking the powers under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. He further submits that the in- camera statements show that the petitioner is a habitual criminal and indulged in serious activities, which are affecting the public order. On the basis of the material placed before the authority and after subjective satisfaction, the authority has passed the impugned order dated 20.06.2025. He further submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, and the learned Divisional Commissioner has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of Superintendent of Police, and therefore, he submits that there are concurrent findings of facts, and this Court may not disturb the concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities concerned. Prity 3 / 6 12.wp860.2025 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. As was argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the order passed by the externing authority for two years is without application of mind and there are no reasons in the impugned order to that effect. To buttress his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2022 DGLS (SC) 101. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 has observed as under : “13. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus: “58. Period of operation of orders under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A - A direction made under section 55, 56,57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or such area and any District or Districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area, District or Districts or part aforesaid or from the specified area or areas as the case may be". On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56. Prity 4 / 6 12.wp860.2025 On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of the respondent no.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.” 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the in-camera statements, which are recorded by the sponsoring authority, upon perusal of those in-camera statements A and B, this appear to be photocopies of each other, as word by word, they are similar to each other, and that, there is no change except in the first line. Therefore, recording such statements and considering such statements while passing the externment order is nothing but eyewash. While passing the externment order, it was the Prity 5 / 6 12.wp860.2025 duty of the externning authority to objectively go through the entire record and thereafter, come to a subjective satisfaction. Subjective satisfaction is important factor while dealing with such matters where fundamental right is invloved. If the entire order is perused, absolutely nothing was mentioned by the externing authority about recording of identical in-camera statements. This fact itself shows that the externment order was passed in a casual manner and without going through the record. Further, it would be necessary to mention at this juncture that while passing the externment order as was mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre (supra), if the authority is inclined to extern the petitioner for two years, then the reason should be set out for enterning a person for maximum period. It is for the authority to show that on what basis and by relying on which material, it has come to the conclusion that externee requires to be externed for the maximum period of externment. Failure on the part of the authority would be tantamount to non-application of mind. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred case that the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the authority must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years based on material placed on record. Prity 6 / 6 12.wp860.2025 7. Considering the entire record and the impugned order, I do not find that the externing authority has applied its mind. Further statutory remedy provided under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act is in the nature of appeal, and it is expected from the concerned authority that it re-appreciate the entire material, which was placed on record, objectively and thereafter, come to a subjective satisfaction. However, without adhering to this, merely reproducing the same contents of the order of externment passed by the Superintendent of Police cannot be said that the concerned appellate authority, while passing the order in the appeal, has subjectively satisfied itself and applied its mind. 8. For all the above reasons, I come to the conclusion that the indulgence of this Court is warranted, and accordingly, the following order is passed : O R D E R i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Wardha and order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside. (M.M. Nerlikar, J.) Prity