1 2-Cr.WP-853-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 853 OF 2025 Rahul s/o Jagdish Saoji and Another -- VERSUS -- The Superintendent of Police, Nagpur and Another __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. N.R. Jadhav, a/w Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. G.S. Umale, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2025. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. 2. Three grounds are raised by the petitioners. The first ground which was raised is that there is no sufficient material against the petitioners in order to consider them as a gang. The second ground raised was that the notice under Section 59 was issued to them, however, there is neither reference of recording of in-camera statements, nor there is gist providing the general nature of material allegation in the said notice. The last ground is that two crimes, i.e., Crime No. 982/2024 was registered 2025:BHC-NAG:12596 2 2-Cr.WP-853-2025 under Section 117(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Crime No.26/2017 was registered under Sections 324, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, is the only common offence between the two petitioners as the petitioners are brothers. The aunt of the petitioners registered the said offence. The last offence was registered against the petitioner No.2, i.e., Crime No.982/2024 and it is registered on 17/10/2024 and accordingly he submits that there is no live link so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned as the externment order was passed on 06/08/2025. The other crimes which are considered those are stale crimes which are registered in the year 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022, and therefore, submits that the order of externment cannot sustain on the above grounds. 3. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that both the petitioners form the gang and have been committing offence since 2017. Though, there are two common crimes which are registered against petitioners, however, there are three crimes registered against petitioner no.1 and five crimes registered against petitioner No.2. So far as both the petitioners are concerned, they have committed crime against human body which falls under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He further submits that in-camera statements were recorded 3 2-Cr.WP-853-2025 which could be gathered from the order of externment. After considering the entire material on record, the externment Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction, and thereafter, externment order was passed, externing the petitioners from Nagpur District for one year. He further submits that the sponsoring authority had recommended externment for two years, however, after considering the entire material, the externing authority thought it fit to extern the petitioners for one year only. This fact itself shows that the externing authority has applied its mind and passed the order of externment. He further submits that the petitioners preferred the appeal, however, they could not succeed and even the Appellate Authority after considering the entire materials on record has confirmed the order of the externment passed by the externing authority. He lastly submits that there are concurrent findings of fact. This Court may not disturb concurrent findings of fact based on objective material. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the respondents and after going through the entire record placed before me, it appears that the externment order was passed under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. It appears that the 4 2-Cr.WP-853-2025 petitioner No.l – Rahul has committed three offences. The first offence is Crime No.26/2017 registered on 20/01/2017, second offence is Crime No.982/2024 registered on 17/10/2024 and the third offence is Crime No.471/2025 registered on 24/05/2025. So far as petitioner No.2 – Sagar is concerned, he has committed five offences. The first offence is Crime No. 26/2017 registered on 20/01/2017, second offence is Crime No. 231/2020 registered on 14/04/2020, third offence is Crime No.536/2021 registered on 04/09/2021, fourth offence is Crime No.195/2022 registered on 17/03/2022 and fifth offence is Crime No.982/2024 registered on 17/10/2024. 5. From the above, it is crystal clear that there are two crimes which are common so far as petitioners are concerned. Admittedly, petitioners are brothers and so far as Crime No. 982/2024 is concerned it was registered by the aunt of the present petitioners, therefore, the crime does not affect the society at large as allegations are individual in nature. Secondly, Crime No.26/2017 was registered long back before 8 years. That crime even otherwise cannot be considered for passing the externment order, as no nexus between passing of order and registration of offence. If these two crimes are 5 2-Cr.WP-853-2025 deleted, then by even stretch of imagination it cannot be said that these two brothers form the gang, therefore, the externment authority has lost sight of this fact that when the first crime was registered in the year 2017 and the second crime was registered in the year 2024 which is individual in nature cannot form basis to extern petitioners. If this is to be permitted, the very purpose and object of Section 55 would be frustrated. So far as last crime is concerned against petitioner No.2 that was registered on 17/10/2024 and the order was passed on 06/08/2025, which is almost after a period of 10 months, therefore, it cannot be said that there is live link between the last crime committed and the order of externment, therefore, on this count also the order of externment does not sustain. 6. It could be gathered from the notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act that the notice contains only the chart of offences shown against the name of the petitioners, however, absolutely there is no reference of recording of in- camera statements in both the notices. Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act mandates hearing to be given before order under Sections 55, 56, 57 or 57A is passed and it was the duty as per the mandate of Section 59 of the concerned enquiry officer to inform 6 2-Cr.WP-853-2025 the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation. Though the order of externment shows that two in- camera statements are recorded, however, in the notice issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the concerned Authority has not stated anything about the recording of those statements, therefore, the very object of conducting the enquiry under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act is frustrated. Further, as it is necessary to mention the gist of general nature of material allegations, meaning thereby what has been stated by the witnesses in the form of gist that has to be informed through this notice by the concerned officer. However, upon perusal of the notice issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act by the S.D.P.O., Saoner, there is no reference of the recording of two in-camera statements, neither there is gist showing the general natural of material allegations in the said notice. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order of externment passed by the respondent No.1 does not sustain. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was rejected without considering the above factors, and therefore, 7 2-Cr.WP-853-2025 even the order passed by respondent No.2 does not sustain. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order dated 09/10/2025 passed in Appeal No.78/2025 by respondent No.2 and the order dated 06/08/2025 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed and set aside. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan