1 / 6 39.wp685.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 685 OF 2025 Sonya @ Mangesh Bhimrao Chandurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thru. PSO, PS Rajapeth, Tq. & Dist. Amravati 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. A.P. Thakare, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Ganesh S. Umale, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 13.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State. 2. The challenge is raised to the confirmation order dated 11.09.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 03.07.2024 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner was externed for a period of two years from Amravati city and Amravati (Rural). 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was acquitted from three crimes, out of four crimes, on the basis of which, the order of externment was passed, however, the acquittal was not considered by the externing authority and relying on all Prity 2 / 6 39.wp685.2025 the offences, the order came to be passed. Though he has filed reply to the notice issued under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act before the externing authority stating that he has been already acquitted in three crimes, however, it was not considered by the externing authority. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the offences which are relied on are of the year 2019 and 2020 and the recent crime was registered in the year 2023 i.e. on 21.11.2023 and the order was passed on 03.07.2024, which is almost after eight months. 5. He further invited my attention to the findings recorded by the externing authority in respect of in-camera statements and submits that there is absolutely no consideration by the externing authority so far as the contents of the in-camera statements are concerned. Merely observing that he has perused the statements would by itself is not sufficient to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. He further submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected though it was brought to the notice of the Divisional Commissioner that he has already been acquitted, however, the Divisional Commissioner only referred to the contention of the petitioner, and observed that the petitioner is habitual in committing crimes, which is per se, illegal. Prity 3 / 6 39.wp685.2025 6. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the petitioner is a habitual criminal, and the recent crime was registered i.e. Crime No.805/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 364, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code on 21.11.2023 and the order is passed on 03.07.2024 and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no live link. 7. He further submits that two in-camera statements were recorded and they have specifically and categorically stated that the petitioner is involved in criminal activities and there is danger to the society at large. The activities of the petitioner are affecting the public at large and therefore, after compliance of the procedure, the impugned order was passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Lastly, he submits that there is no merit in the matter and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned APP, it appears that the petitioner was externed by respondent No.3 by exercising the powers under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. It further appears from the record that the petitioner was accused of four crimes, which are as follows: Prity 4 / 6 39.wp685.2025 Hkkx & 1 rs 5 ps 03 xqUgs v-dz- Ikksyhl Bk.ks vi dz- dye nks’kk- dz- dksVZ ds- dz- 1 jkTkkisB 631@2020 143]147]148 149]294]506¼c½ Hkk-n-fo- lgdye 3] 25 vkeZ vWDV lgdye 135 e-iks- dk- 596@2020 fn-10-11-2020 1563@2020 fn-08-12-20020 2 XkkMxsuxj 347@2020 461]380 Hkk-n-fo- 575@2020 fn-02-10-2020 1156@2020 fn-07-10-2020 3 jkTkkisB 805@2023 326]364]143] 147]148]149 Hkk-n-fo- 544@2023 fn-21-11-2023 1848@2023 fn-22-11-2023 Hkkx & 6 ps 01 xqUgk v-d- Ikksyhl Bk.ks vi dz- dye nks’kk- dz- dksVZ ds- dz- 1 XkkMxsuxj 362@2019 4]25 vkeZ vWDV 24@2020 fn-08-01-2020 98@2020 fn-17-01-2020 9. It would be necessary to mention at this juncture that the petitioner, after receipt of the notice under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, has filed the reply to the said notice informing the respondent No.3 that he has been acquitted in three crimes and only one case is pending for adjudication, which is of 2023. Even though all the orders of the acquittal were placed on record; however, the respondent No.3 has conveniently ignored the same without commenting on it and relied on all the crimes for passing the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner was involved in four crimes however, out of those four crimes he was acquitted in three of them, the Prity 5 / 6 39.wp685.2025 entire tenor of the order does not disclose anything about the acquittal, even there is no passing reference to that effect and therefore, it could be gathered that respondent No.3 has not applied mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, so also, it can safely be said that respondent No.3 has not gone through the record and therefore, came to the wrong conclusion. It is further to be noted that respondent No.3 in last paragraph at page 17 has inserted all the allegations which are made in all FIRs, even though the petitioner was acquitted from three cases, it was expected from respondent No.3 to consider the acquittal. 10. One of the glaring fact that emerges from the record is that, though there is reference of two in-camera statements, absolutely, there is no appreciation of the contents of the in-camera statements; not only that even what has been said by those witnesses has not at all surfaced in the order. The respondent No.3 has merely said that two in-camera statements are recorded and he has gone through the entire record, which by itself is not sufficient in order to come to the conclusion when the important right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is involved. 11. It is needless to mention at this juncture that the last crime which was committed by the petitioner was in Crime No.805/2023 dated 21.11.2023 and the order of Prity 6 / 6 39.wp685.2025 externment is passed on 03.07.2024, which is almost after nine months and therefore, it can be said that the live link is snapped and there is no nexus between the order passed and the last committed crime, on this ground also the order does not sustain. 12. The petitioner had also filed appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, it was at least expected from the respondent No.2 – Divisional Commissioner that he should look into the submissions made before him. Even the Divisional Commissioner, without considering the merits of the matter, has only said that the petitioner has brought on record that out of four crimes in three crimes, he was acquitted. However, there is no finding that under such circumstances, how the externment order would sustain. It has only been observed that, although four offences are registered, there is no change in the petitioner's conduct or behaviour. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, both the impugned orders does not sustain in law and therefore, accordingly, are quashed and set aside. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (M.M. Nerlikar, J.) Prity