Judgment wp898.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 898/2025. 1.Sudhir s/o Chandrabhan Sahare, Aged about 56 years, Occupation -Labour, Resident of Samta Nagar, Warud, District Wardha – 442102. 2.Hemant s/o Santoshrao Ingale, Aged about 35 years, Occupation Carpenter, resident of Sonegaon Khunkar, Post Sirasgaon, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha. ... PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1.Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 2.State of Maharashtra, Through Superintendent of Police, Wardha. 3.Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Wardha. 4.Police Sub Inspector, P.S. Sewagram, District Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS . Rgd. 2025:BHC-NAG:13856 Judgment wp898.25 2 --------------------------------- Mr. N.D. Dawada, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.M. Jaltare, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A.M.Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondents. ---------------------------------- CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 08, 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable and by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioners have filed this petition raising challenge to the order of externment dated 17.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2- Superintendent of Police, Wardha and confirmed by respondent no.1 - Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur vide order dated 03.10.2025. By said orders, petitioners are externed from entire Wardha District for a period of two years. The basis on which the action under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act is taken are Rgd. Judgment wp898.25 3 crimes which are registered under Sections 65[e], 77 and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that for externing petitioners, crimes registered under Section 65[e] of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot be taken into consideration. He has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in case of Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar .vrs. State of Maharashtra and another (2023 ALL MR (Cri) 1284), wherein this Court in paragraph no.13 has observed that “.. It is settled legal position that such crimes cannot be taken into consideration to justify the externment order. In this connection, useful reference can be made to the decision in the case of Vijay @ Tyson s/o Namdeorao Dongre .vrs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 5254. In this case it is held that the crime registered under Section 65[e] of the Prohibition Act for selling, buying and possessing intoxicant could not be said to be prejudicial to the public peace, tranquility and as such, cannot be made the foundation for externment.” He further submits that this Court has recently dealt with Rgd. Judgment wp898.25 4 the identical facts in case of Priyanka Rakesh Kamble .vrs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Writ Petition No.847/2025 and other connected matters, decided on 27.11.2025), and held that the offences registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, cannot form the basis for externing the persons as such their activities do not cause damage or alarm. 4. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that Wardha is a dry district wherein there is prohibition to sell, buy or possess liquor. If persons like petitioners are permitted to sell, buy or possess liquor, then it will give wrong signal to the society at large. The activities are harmful to the society and therefore, it is squarely covered under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. He has given much stress on the wordings of Section 55 that the activities of petitioners are causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang. He therefore, submits that considering that Wardha is a Dry District, the Authorities have rightly passed the order. Apart from the crimes which are registered against the Rgd. Judgment wp898.25 5 petitioners, their activities in the vicinity are also necessary to be taken into consideration and for that purpose he has relied on two in-camera statements recorded by the sponsoring authority. He further submit that even the Divisional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, and therefore there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record it reveals that admittedly the offence under Sections 65[e], 77A and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act are registered against the petitioners. So far as the petitioner no.1 -Sudhir Chandrabhan Sahare is concerned, against him 7 crimes are registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and against petitioner no.2 – Hemant Santoshrao Ingale, there are 2 crimes registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and one crime is also registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against him. It appears from the record that the externing authority has also taken shelter of two in-camera statements recorded by the sponsoring authority. Rgd. Judgment wp898.25 6 6. So far as the crime registered under Section 65[e], 77[a] and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is concerned, admittedly this Court in catena of judgments has taken a view that for invoking the provisions under Section 55 or 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, if the crime is registered under the Prohibition Act, those cannot be taken into consideration. 7. In the case of Paranjtsingh [supra] relied upon by the petitioner, it states of that selling, buying or possessing intoxicant cannot be said to be prejudicial to public peace or tranquility, and as such cannot be made foundation for externment. Similarly in case of Priyanka Kamble [supra], this Court has taken a view that even if the activities are carried out in Wardha District, the same by itself would not be sufficient to extern petitioners under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. 8. So far as in-camera statements are concerned, that by itself are not sufficient to extern the petitioners. At this juncture, it would Rgd. Judgment wp898.25 7 also be necessary to mention that perusal of the entire order reveals that there is no reason given by the externing authorities in respect of externing the petitioners for a period of two years. The Supreme Court in case of Deepak Laxman Dongre .vrs. State of Maharashtra (2022 ALL MR (Cri) 761), has specifically held that it is necessary to give reasons for externing the externee for maximum period as contemplated under Section 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act. In case of failure to record reasons, the order would not sustain. In the present matter also, there is no plausible reason given to extern the petitioners for maximum period of 2 years. So far as the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 60 of the Police Act is concerned, the Divisional Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the above important aspects of the matter, and therefore, failed to adhere to the provisions of law. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order do not sustain in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and following order is passed. Rgd. Judgment wp898.25 8 ORDER (i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The order of externment dated 17.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Wardha and confirmed by the respondent no.1 Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur vide order dated 03.10.2025, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Rgd.