1 2026:CGHC:21138-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 26 of 2026 1 - Rishi Patil S/o Shri Mayaram Patil, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village- Mohtara, Thana- Gidhauri Tundra, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - District Magistrate Balodabazar, Distt.- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent of Police Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer, Police Station Gidhauri- Tundra, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.05.08 15:39:56 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06-05-2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records which relates to criminal case no. 202507210100064 section 3, 5(b)/2025 from the court of District Magistrate Balodabazar. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the order impugned dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) which relates to externment of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that proceedings under Sections 3 and 5(b) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 were initiated by the District Magistrate, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara against the petitioner on the basis of a report submitted by Respondent No. 3 for his externment from the territory of District Balodabazar- Bhatapara and its adjoining districts for a period of one year. The contentions of the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated mainly on the basis of cases registered against the petitioner under 3 Sections 36(c), 34(1) and 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act since the year 2016, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted after due trial and no criminal case was pending against him at the time of initiation of the proceedings. 3. After issuance of show-cause notice dated 07.08.2025 and hearing the parties, the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara passed the order dated 22.09.2025 directing the petitioner not to enter within the territorial limits of District Balodabazar-Bhatapara and adjoining districts namely Bilaspur, Raipur, Raigarh, Mahasamund, Mungeli, Janjgir-Champa, Bemetara, Sakti and Sarangarh-Bilaigarh for a period of one year from the date of passing of the order. 4. The order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 before the State Government. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was decided on 11.12.2025 whereby the State Government dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate. The order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the appellate authority is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cases on the basis of which the externment order dated 22.09.2025 was passed were old in nature and none of the allegations against the petitioner disclose involvement in any serious or heinous offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been acquitted in all the criminal cases 4 after due trial and no criminal case has been registered against him in the year 2025. It is also submitted that the authorities failed to properly appreciate the reply and documents submitted by the petitioner during the proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has already remained outside the district for a considerable period, i.e., upto filing of the case three months and as of now for about 7 months and the period already lapsed may be treated as sufficient and the impugned order may suitably be modified. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as the appellate authority. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly considering the fact that all the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are of the period from 2014 to 2024 and no criminal case was pending against him at the time of initiation of externment proceedings, further considering that the petitioner has already remained out of District Balodabazar-Bhatapara and surrounding districts Bilaspur, Raipur, Raigarh, Mahasamund, Mungeli, Janjgir-Champa, Bemetara, Sakti and Sarangarh-Bilaigarh for about 7 months in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate which has been upheld by the appellate authority, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to reform himself and the order of externment for 5 a period of one year passed by the learned District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Annexure P/2) and affirmed by the appellant authority vide order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P/1), needs to be modified to the extent that the period of externment is reduced to seven months. It is ordered accordingly. 8. With the above modification, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil