1 CGHC010316982026 2026:CGHC:36746-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 478 of 2026 1 - Anchal Agrawal @ Jini Son of Shri Anil Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of R.S.S. Nagar, MIG-1/55, Manikpur, P.S.- Kotwali, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department (Block-C), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The District Magistrate, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent of Police, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer, Police Station, Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 18.08.2026 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.24 11:26:03 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case from the respondents for its kind consideration of the Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. F-4- 66/Grih-C/2026 (Registration No. 161) (Annexure P/1) and impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/2). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The facts as mentioned in the petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police, Korba, initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh State Security Act, 1990, and submitted a report dated 22.11.2025 to the District Magistrate, Korba, alleging that the petitioner had been involved in criminal activities since 2019 and had repeatedly committed offences involving assault, threats and hooliganism, thereby creating fear and insecurity amongst the residents of the locality. On the basis of the said report, the respondent No. 2 registered Criminal Case No. 3 202512050400020/2025 and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply along with relevant orders and judgments, contending that several criminal cases relied upon against him had already ended in acquittal or compromise, while in some cases he had been granted anticipatory bail. It was stated that criminal cases relating to Crime No. 308/2024 and Crime No. 77/2025, are pending before the competent Court. The petitioner further contended that although ten witnesses had been cited by the respondent No. 3, only respondent No. 4 was examined during the proceedings. Despite the petitioner’s objections, the respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 26.02.2026 directing his externment from District Korba and the adjoining districts, namely Bilaspur, Janjgir- Champa, Sakti, Raigarh, Surguja, Surajpur, Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur and Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi for a period of one year alleging that his continued presence was prejudicial to public peace and safety. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1990 before respondent No. 1, contending, inter alia, that he had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing or an opportunity to examine defence witnesses and that the mandatory requirements of Section 5 of the Act had not been complied with. However, respondent No. 1, vide impugned order dated 09.07.2026, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of externment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court 4 challenging the orders of externment dated 26.02.2026 and appellate order dated 09.07.2026. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned appellate order dated 09.07.2026 is perverse, erroneous and unsustainable in law, as the respondent authorities failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (in short ‘the Act, 1990’) and did not afford the petitioner a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing, including an opportunity to examine witnesses in his defence. The order of externment dated 26.02.2026 was thus passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the ingredients necessary for exercise of power under Section 5 were not established, particularly as no conviction has been recorded against the petitioner for any offence falling within the categories contemplated by the provision. The respondent No. 1 also failed to independently consider the grounds raised in the appeal and mechanically affirmed the order of externment. The impugned order is therefore non-speaking and arbitrary, as it merely reproduces the allegations of the police without dealing with the specific defence raised by the petitioner, the acquittals, closure of preventive proceedings, the pendency of cases at different stages, and the admissions elicited during cross-examination of the prosecution witness. 5 4. It is further submitted that the material relied upon by the authorities does not justify the drastic action of externment. Several criminal cases relied upon against the petitioner, including Crime Nos. 07/2018, 820/2019, 1180/2021 and 208/2024, have culminated in acquittal, including an acquittal based on compromise, while the preventive proceedings did not result in any adjudicated finding of guilt or breach of peace. The remaining cases are either pending investigation or trial, and the petitioner continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence, with anticipatory bail having been granted in certain matters. There is also no finding that the petitioner is a member of any organised gang or that his alleged activities have caused such widespread disturbance of public order as to warrant the exceptional remedy of externment. The direction excluding the petitioner not only from District Korba but also from several adjoining districts is excessively wide and disproportionate, particularly when no consideration has been given to any less restrictive measure capable of securing the same objective. The petitioner has a permanent residence, livelihood and family ties in Korba and his externment causes serious hardship to him and his dependent family members. In the absence of any conviction and in view of the acquittals and pending trials, the authorities ought to have considered the petitioner’s conduct, efforts towards lawful livelihood and reintegration into society before imposing such a severe restriction on his liberty. Accordingly, the impugned orders 6 deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned orders. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Before adverting to the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner as discussed earlier and examining them on the anvil of the law prevailing in the filed of externment, it is apt to refer the provisions of the Act, 1990. Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, 1990 under which the order of externment has been passed is quoted hereinbelow :- "5. Removal of persons about to commit offence.- Whenever it appears to the District Magistrate- (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property; or (b) that there are reasonably grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, 4 XVI or XVII or under Section 506 of 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or in the abetment of any such offence, and 7 when in the opinion of the District Magistrate witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property; or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant; the District Magistrate, may by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise as the District Magistrate thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant- (a) so as to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease; (b) to remove himself outside the district or districts or any part thereof or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto by such route within such time as the District Magistrate may specify and not to enter or return to the said district or part thereof or such are and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself." 6. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences.- If a person has been convicted - (a) of an offence.- (i) under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 or 1860); or 8 (ii) under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); or (b) twice, of an offence under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1556); or (c) thrice, of an offence within a period of three years under Section 3 or 4 of 4-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), in its application to the State of Chhattisgarh; the District Magistrate may, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely against to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted direct such person by an order to remove himself outside the district or part thereof or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the District Magistrate may order and not to enter or return to the District or part thereof or such area and such contiguous district or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself. Explanation :- For the purpose of this Section, the expression, "an offence similar to that for which he was convicted" means (i) in the case of a person convicted of an offence mentioned in clause (a), in offence falling under any of the Chapters or Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), mentioned in that clause or an offence falling under the provisions of the Act mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of that clause; and (ii) in the case of a person convicted of an 9 offence mentioned in clauses (b) and (c), an offence falling under the provisions of the Act mentioned respectively in the said clauses. 8. From perusal of the impugned orders and materials available on record, it transpires that for the action of externment from the District, the Superintendent of Police, Korba submitted a report dated 22.11.2025 (Annexure P/3) to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Korba alleging that the petitioner Anchal Agrawal @ Jini is a person of criminal and hooligan nature in the area of Police Station Kotwali and Police Chowki Manikpur. Since the year 2019, he has been continuously involved in assault, loot, intimidation, offences under the Excise Act and rioting. It is alleged that by committing assault and threatening members of the public he creates fear and terror and tries to establish his dominance. Due to fear and terror of him, the people of the area are not able to inform the police about many crimes committed by him. Since his acts pose a serious threat to the security of public peace and a situation adverse to public order is created, a request was made to take preventive action against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. It was also reported that some preventive actions were taken against him from time to time, but there has been no improvement in his conduct. The District Magistrate, Korba issued a show cause notice to the petitioner in relation to the said report and afforded him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner submitted his reply along with certain documents contending that 10 several criminal cases relied upon against him had already ended in acquittal or compromise, while in some cases he had been granted anticipatory bail and some cases are pending against him and as such, there is no any conviction against him. It is also apparent from the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 that the witness examined has stated that the petitioner is intensively active in crime and he has no fear of law. 9. It further transpires that several criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and some preventive proceedings/Istgashas were also initiated. As per the record, cases including Crime Nos. 07/2018, 820/2019, 1180/2021 and 208/2024 have resulted in acquittal, some on the basis of compromise and some on merits. Certain Istgashas did not result in any adjudicated finding. Some cases including Crime No. 308/2024, Crime No. 77/2025 and Crime No. 93/2025 are pending at trial/investigation stage. The authorities have taken note that when common people make complaints against the petitioner or when someone in the locality tries to stop him, he becomes agitated and starts threatening. Due to his alleged criminal activities, an atmosphere of panic and terror has been created in the city and ward. The authorities are of the opinion that the petitioner’s free movement in the society and in the region has become extremely dangerous for maintaining peace and order in the region. 10. Looking to the number of criminal cases registered against the petitioner and the preventive actions taken against him, and also 11 looking to the conduct of the petitioner by which free movement in the society and in the region has become dangerous for maintaining peace and order, we are of the opinion that the District Magistrate has followed the due procedure of law and has rightly passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 against the petitioner under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of 1990 directing his externment from District Korba and the adjoining revenue precints of Districts Bilaspur, Janjgir-Champa, Sakti, Raigarh, Surguja, Surajpur, Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur and Gourela-Pendra- Marwahi for a period of one year. Moreover, considering the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 09.07.2026 and also considering the nature of cases registered against the petitioner and his alleged anti-social activities, the action taken by the respondents is preventive in nature. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The contention that no conviction has been recorded and that several cases ended in acquittal has been duly considered by the authorities, but in view of the overall material, the drastic step of externment was found necessary in the interest of public order and safety. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil