39-CRWP-824-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 824 OF 2025 Tejas Dilip Sonawane Age: 25 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o Parvatabai Oak Nagar, Kanchan Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dis. Jalgaon ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalgaon 5. The Police Inspector Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. H.P. Randhir, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents .... CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. 1 / 5 2025:BHC-AUG:35355 39-CRWP-824-25.odt 2. The petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 07th April, 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik (for short, ‘the Commissioner’) in Externment Appeal No. 176 of 2025 and whereby confirmed order dated 02nd August, 2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaglaon, Division Jalgaon (for short, ‘S.D.M.’), whereby externed the petitioner from Jalgaon District for a period of two years, and therefore, has preferred this petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State and gone through the record, at the outset, it appears that based on registration of the following offences, the respondent authorities have issued the notice and passed the impugned orders. I would like to reproduce the same as under :- Sr.No. Police Station C.R.No. Sections Present Status 1 Shanipeth 178/2023 U/Sec. 294, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code read with 110, 112, 117 of Maharashtra Police Act Investigation 2 Shanipeth 169/2020 U/Sec. 376, 354, 34 of Indian Penal Code read with 4, 6, 7 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. Under Investigation 3 Shanipeth 230/2022 U/Sec. 324, 336, 427 of Indian Penal Code Pending Trial 4 Shanipeth 197/2022 U/Sec. 323, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code Pending Trial 5 Shanipeth 426/2022 U/Sec. 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code Pending Trial 6 Shanipeth 448/2022 U/Sec. 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code Pending Trial 2 / 5 39-CRWP-824-25.odt 4. Bare perusal of the above offences, it appears that the offences at Sr.Nos. 2 to 6 have been registered in 2020 and 2022, and only one offence at Sr.No.1 was registered in 2023. On the same, the S.D.M. issued a notice to the petitioner on 3rd January, 2024, directing the S.D.O., Jalgaon, to conduct an inquiry under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1950 ( for short, the Act). Pursuant to the same, on 05th April, 2024, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years. Thereafter, by order dated 02nd August, 2024, the S.D.M. externed him from Jalgaon district for a period of two years. The petitioner challenged the said order in an appeal. The learned Commissioner, by order dated 07th April, 2025, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the S.D.M. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences at Sr.Nos. 1 to 3 are individualistic in nature and offences at Sr.Nos. 4 to 6 are the non-cognisable offences, and therefore, issuance of notices by the learned authorities is contrary to the settled position of law and hence, the petitioner urged for allowing the petition. 6. Bare perusal of the above table of offences appears that the offences at Sr.Nos. 2 to 6 were registered in 2020 and 2022. Those five offences have been relied upon by the authorities, which are stale offences, in the sense that there is no live link between the said offences and the necessity of passing of the order of externment in the year 2024. It also appears that 3 / 5 39-CRWP-824-25.odt the offences at Sr.Nos. 1 to 3 are in respect of an individual. Similarly, offences at Sr. Nos. 4 to 6 are non-cognisable. Likewise, there is no material on record to show that the witnesses were not coming to depose in these cases, and therefore, both clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section 1 of Section 56 of the Act are not attracted. 7. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, in the various judgments, have observed and held that the competent authority must be satisfied that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to given evidence against the persons proposed to be externed by raising apprehension on their part as regards their safety or property and without recording of the subjective satisfaction by the competent authority passing of the externment order is not of the standard required in law. It is also observed that by passing of the order of externment under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India of a person are taken away. Similarly, mere registration of the number of offences does not sustain an externment under Section 56 (1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, passing of the order without recording substantive satisfaction certainly infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. 8. It further appears that pursuant to the impugned orders, the petitioner had suffered for more than 1 year and 4 months out of two years. 4 / 5 39-CRWP-824-25.odt 9. Thus, having considered the above discussion, it seems that the order passed by the learned S.D.M. and confirmed by the learned Commissioner, appears contrary to the settled position of law, and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, those orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 10. As a result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07th April, 2025, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, in Externment Appeal No. 176 of 2024, whereby the confirmed order dated 02nd August, 2024, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaglaon, Division Jalgaon, are hereby quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SSD 5 / 5