931 WP-4640-2025.DOC skt `IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4640 OF 2025 1. Farhan Abdul Kadar Batatewala 2. Adil Dilawar Supariwala 3. Sufiyan Hasan Batatewala …Petitioners Vs. 1. The Divisional Commissioner Kokan Division, Mumbai 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-1, Brihan Mumbai 3. The Sr. Police Inspector 4. The State of Maharashtra …Respondents Mr. Mateen Shaikh a/w. Razique Shaikh, Arshad Shaikh, Hassan Siddiqui, Muskan Shaikh and Jammu Shaikh, for the Petitioners. Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for the State. API Vaibhav Kadam, Dongri Police Station. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of order dated 21st February 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Brihan Mumbai in Externment 29th September, 2026 931 WP-4640-2025.DOC skt Case No. 43 of 2025 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 by which the Petitioners have been externed from Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, Navi Mumbai and Panvel for a period of two years. The said order has been challenged before the Appellate Authority by filing Externment Appeal No. 46 of 2025 and the said appeal has been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division by order dated 6th August 2025. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that there is no live-link between the offences and show cause notice. He submits that the last offence as far as the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, is C.R. No. 274 of 2024 which has been registered with Dongri Police Station on 14th June 2024. He submits that the said offences was under investigation and therefore the same could not have been taken into consideration. He submits that as far as the Petitioner No. 3 is concerned, only one offence is registered which was under investigation and therefore he could not have been externed. As far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, he submits that the last offence which has been taken into consideration against him is registered on 24th May 2024 as the action has been taken on 21st February, 29th September, 2026 931 WP-4640-2025.DOC skt 2025, there is no live link between these two cases. As far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, he states, the last offence is of 29th December 2024 and the action taken is on 21st February 2025 and therefore also, there is no live link between the last offence and the action of externment. He submits that show cause notice has not been issued. In any case, he submits that all the Petitioners are ready to give undertaking in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage Vs. State of Maharashtra1 and Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel tenders undertakings of all the Petitioners stating that the Petitioners would not indulge in the business of tobacco and allied product which are prohibited in the State of Maharashtra and that the Petitioners undertake that they shall not indulge in the offences related to Tobacco and Gutkha. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP strongly opposes the Writ Petition. She submits that as far as the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, there are eight offences, there are four offences against Petitioner No.2 and there is one offence against Petitioner No.3. She submits that the Petitioners are indulging in the said offences 1 SLP (Cri.) Diary No. 2806/2023 29th September, 2026 931 WP-4640-2025.DOC skt as a gang and the Petitioner No.1 is a gang-leader. She submits that all the offences are very serious concerning the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. She submits that there is live-link between the offences and action of externment and therefore, no interference in the impugned orders is warranted. 5. Perusal of the record shows that the offences alleged against the Petitioners are concerning Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences are concerning bailable offences. The issue whether the offence under Section 328 of the Penal Code will apply to similar cases, i.e., where the Petitioners were found dealing with Gutkha is pending before the Supreme Court. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage (supra) has, while granting bail, has imposed following condition : “It is deemed appropriate to impose the condition – “I, Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage do undertake to not deal with Gutkha, that is, Pan Masala with Tobacco”. In case, the appellant – Abhijeet Jitendra Lolage violates the terms and conditions of bail, including the undertaking imposed, it would be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. ” (Emphasis added) 29th September, 2026 931 WP-4640-2025.DOC skt Mr. Mateen Shaikh, learned Counsel of the Petitioners submitted earlier that all the Petitioners are ready to give such undertaking and accordingly, tenders such undertaking of all the Petitioners which is in terms of the said order of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Jitendra Lolage (supra). 7. As far as the merits are concerned, there is only one case against the Petitioner No.3 which has been taken into consideration and admittedly the said case was under investigation when action was taken and therefore could not have been taken into consideration and drastic order of externment could not have been passed. 8. Perusal of the record shows that as far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, the last offence is registered on 24th December 2024 and as far as the Petitioner No.2 is concerned, the last offence is registered on 14th June 2024 and the notice under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act was given on 20th October 2025. Thus, there is substance in the contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that there is no live link as far as the registration of offence and the show cause notice is concerned. 29th September, 2026 931 WP-4640-2025.DOC skt 9. Perusal of the record shows that all the offences are of bailable nature except offence under Section 328 IPC. As noted earlier, whether Section 328 IPC will apply to the said offence concerning dealing with Pan Masala and Gutkha is being considered by the Supreme Court. The Petitioners have already given the undertakings that they will not indulge in the offences related to the Gutkha i.e. Pan Masala with Tobacco. The said undertakings given by the Petitioners are accepted. 10. Although certain reasons are set out for externing the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, however, there is no subjective satisfaction recorded for externing the Petitioners from the area of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad. 11. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out for interference in the impugned orders. The Writ Petition is disposed of by passing following order : O R D E R i. The order dated 21st February 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Brihan Mumbai in 29th September, 2026 931 WP-4640-2025.DOC skt Externment Case No. 43 of 2025 as also order dated 6th August 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division in Externment Appeal No. 46 of 2026 are quashed and set aside, subject to the Petitioners strictly complying with the undertakings given to this Court and accepted by this Court. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 29th September, 2026