1 / 7 40.wp738.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 738 OF 2025 Mohammad Hussain @ Bantu Mohammad Bashir Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thru. Its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 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. Aaquid Z. Mirza, Advocate a/w Mr. S.P. Sonwane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 13.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. 2. The earlier order of externment dated 31.01.2023 was passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act against the petitioner. This Court vide its order dated 21.09.2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.548/2023 has quashed and set aside the externment order dated 31.01.2023. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the crimes which are referred in the earlier order dated 31.01.2023, those crimes are referred in the present impugned order dated 13.02.2025. Further, Prity 2 / 7 40.wp738.2025 even perusal of the FIR in Crime No.22/2023 registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the name of the petitioner does not appear and only the copy of FIR was placed before the externing authority. Therefore, there was no material before the externing authority to conclude that the petitioner was made accused in Crime No.22/2023. The last crime which was shown to have been committed by the petitioner is Crime No.418/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 189(2), 190, 296, 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 on 16.09.2024 and the said offence was shown to be pending investigation, it also cannot be considered in view of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 442. Accordingly, he submits that there was no material before the externing authority to extern the petitioner. 4. He further submits that both in-camera statements are identical word to word except in the last paragraph, one incident is narrated differently. Therefore, it could be said that those statements cannot be relied on and those are recorded by the police officials themselves without recording the true version of the concerned persons and therefore, he submits that the order does not sustain on the above ground and therefore, deserves to be quashed. Prity 3 / 7 40.wp738.2025 5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the petitioner is involved in the serious crime punishable under the NDPS Act. He concedes that when the earlier externment order dated 31.01.2023 was passed, crimes up to serial No.4 were considered in that externment order. However, he submits that even thereafter, other crimes are registered against the petitioner which are considered, and those crimes are sufficient to pass the order of externment. There is a nexus between the last crime committed by the petitioner and the order passed thereafter and in-camera statements are recorded by the police officials, on the basis of information given by the respective witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that in-camera statements are replicas of each other. The incidents narrated in in-camera statements are different and therefore, they can be very well relied on. Not only that he has invited my attention to the impugned order wherein, according to the learned APP, there is consideration of in-camera statements also and therefore, submits that the order of externment is justified in the facts of the case. All the aspects have been considered, even in the appeal by the appellate authority, and therefore, there are concurrent findings of fact, and the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the findings arrived at by the authorities and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Prity 4 / 7 40.wp738.2025 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP, it appears to me that, admittedly, this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.548/2023, has quashed and set aside the earlier order of externment dated 31.01.2023. In the said externment order, same crimes were considered up to Crime No.691/2022. 7. Admittedly, after the order of externment dated 31.01.2023, the petitioner has committed as many as three crimes, out of which, first is registered under the NDPS Act, second is NCR and thirdly, offence under the BNS Act is registered. So far as the crime registered under NDPS Act is concerned, i.e. Crime No.22/2023., apparently, this offence is affecting society at large and destroying the future generation, however, it is expected from the externing authority to verify the involvement of the accused/petitioner in an objective manner. In the present case, only FIR was placed before the externing authority and after perusal of the FIR, the name of the petitioner does not appear. Under such circumstances, the question would be whether the externing authority has applied its mind before passing of the order. When the name itself does not appear in the FIR, then there is no question of coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was involved in the said crime. At this stage, the learned APP appearing for the respondents' authorities submits Prity 5 / 7 40.wp738.2025 that charge-sheet was filed in the said crime and the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.9 in the said crime. He might have been added in the charge-sheet, however, the fact remains that there was nothing before the externing authority at the relevent time in order to extern the petitioner. 8. So far as Crime No.414/2024 is concerned which is NCR it was registered for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and it was registered on 03.06.2024. The last crime, which was committed by the petitioner in Crime No.418/2024 was registered on 16.09.2024, is shown to be pending investigation, and the same ought to be ignored in view of the judgment of Imtiyaz (supra). It would be useful to refer to the judgment of Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 442, in para 19, which reads thus: “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 of the investigation, the investigating agency may or may not send the accused for trial. It is true, in one of the crimes, subsequently Prity 6 / 7 40.wp738.2025 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 Vs. State of Maharashtra, appears to be well founded.” 9. Therefore, if the crime is under investigation and the charge-sheet has not been filed that crime cannot be considered. Then, only NCR No.414/2024 remains. It is to be borne in mind that while passing the order of externment, the material which is placed before the externing authority must be concrete. Such petty offences, which are individual in nature, cannot be considered for passing the order of the externment. 10. Now coming to in-camera statements recorded by the sponsoring authority, that would by itself, demonstrate that ‘word by word’, it is a replica of each other. However, only in the last paragraph one incident is narrated differently. Even those incidents as referred in in- camera statements are of October 2024, hence, the recording of both statements itself is under the shadow of doubt. It creates doubt for the reason that those statements are not recorded as per witnesses version, which is apparent on the face of those statements. Therefore, if such statements are to be relied upon, it would be a mockery of justice. Prity 7 / 7 40.wp738.2025 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order does not sustain. Even the appellate authority has failed to appreciate what has been observed supra and therefore, both the orders are required to be quashed and set aside, hence, the following order : O R D E R a) The confirmation order dated 14.08.2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and order dated 13.02.2025 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police are hereby quashed and set aside. b) The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (M.M. Nerlikar, J.) Prity