1 / 3 37.wp757.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2025 Shubham Alias Zhabya Devendra Katakwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Thru, its Superintendent of Police, Bhandara and anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.K. Madane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare, APP for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 19.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State. 2. The impugned orders dated 05.04.2024 passed by respondent No.1 externing the petitioner under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and order dated 23.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 thereby dismissing the appeal are challenged in the present petition. 3. It appears that there are eight persons who have been externed by the impugned order. It appears from the record that out of these eight persons, two persons namely, Bhupendra Mohan Gilorkar and Ratnapal Prity 2 / 3 37.wp757.2025 @ Ratandeep @ Kalu Hemraj Mate approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition Nos.986/2024 and 994/2024 respectively. This Court by order dated 23.04.2025 allowed both the writ petitions, paragraph Nos.8 and 9 are relevant, which reads thus :- “8. So far as the next ground of non-recording of subjective satisfaction by the Competent Authority for externing the petitioner for two years is concerned, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1951 particularly, Section 58 of the Act of 1951, it is incumbent on the part of the Competent Authority for deciding the duration of externment under Section 55 of the Act of 1951 and to record subjective satisfaction on the objective assessment of the period for which externment order is to be passed. The impugned order nowhere depicts the fulfillment of this essential condition of subjective satisfaction with regard to the period of externment. Thus, no reason is mentioned as to why the petitioner was externed for the maximum period provided under Section 55 of the Act of 1951. The petitioner has already suffered externment for one year. As held in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre (supra), if no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the Competent Authority, it would amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under Clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is allowed. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Externment Case No.1543 of 2024 by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, is also quashed and set aside.” Prity 3 / 3 37.wp757.2025 4. In view of the order passed by this Court that there are no reasons mentioned in the externment order for externing the petitioners for maximum period provided under Section 58 of the said Act, the same reason will be applicable herein and the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, hence, the following order : O R D E R a) The order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara and order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set aside. b) The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (M.M. Nerlikar, J.) Prity