- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4488 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI PAVAN KUMAR S/O SEETHARAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT KUMDEL HOUSE, PUDU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA – 574 169 NOTE. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER IS AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUN SHYAM SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU – 575 001. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANTAWAL SUB - DIVISION MANGALURU – 574 219. 4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, BANTWALA RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.M.A.G.S.R 24/2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 U/S.55(a) AND 55(b) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT ON THE FILE OF THE (THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE MANGALURU) THEREBY EXTERNING THE PETITIONER FROM D.K., DISTRICT TO CHAMARAJANAGARA RURAL POLICE LIMITS PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of externment passed by the 2nd respondent on 12-01-2026 under Sections 55(a) and 55(b) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 2. Heard the learned senior counsel, Sri. Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, Sri. Anoop Kumar, appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: The 4th respondent – Police Inspector files an application before the 3rd respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police seeking externment of the petitioner on the score that he is embroiled in several criminal cases. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent recommends the matter pertaining to the externment of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The 2nd respondent thus passes the impugned order on 12-01-2026 under Sections 55(a) and 55(b) of the Act,externing the petitioner from Dakshina Kannada district to the jurisdiction of the Chamarajanagar Rural Police from 13-01-2026 to 31-05- 2026. The petitioner is now at the doors of this Court seeking quashment of the order of externment dated 12-01-2026. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of externment is passed without issuing a show cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing as per Section 58 of the Act. 5. The issue in the lisstands answered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MAHESH SHETTY THIMARODI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. Answer to point No. 1: Whether all police reports and documents, including FIR, statements, charge sheet, etc., are required to be furnished to the person who is sought to be externed? …. …. …. 10.11. Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. 55. Removal of persons about to commit offences.—Whenever it shall appear in the City of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other area or areas to which the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend the provision of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction and specially empowered by the Government in that behalf,— 12025 SCC OnLine Kar 22378 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 (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 reasonable 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, XVI or XVII of the Penal Code, 1860, or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer 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 said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him, or by beat of drum or otherwise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such area and any district or districts or any part thereof contiguous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may specify and not to enter, or return to the said place from which he was directed to remove himself. 10.12. A perusal of Section 55 would indicate that whenever it appears that in the city of Bangalore and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed, that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm from a danger or harm to person or property, or if there are reasonable 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, XVI and XVII of the IPC, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer 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 or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 their personal property, then an order of externment could be passed. 10.13. Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference. 58. Hearing to be given before an order is passed under section 54, 55 or 56.— (1) Before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, the officer acting under any of the said sections or any officer above the rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. If such person makes an application for the examination of any witness, produced by him, the Authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the Authority or officer is of opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. Any written statement put in by such person shall be filed with the record of the case. Such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under this section by a legal practitioner for the purposes of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him. (2) The Authority or officer proceeding under sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person against whom any order is proposed to be made under section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to appear before him and to furnish a security bond with or without sureties for such attendance during the inquiry. If the person fails to furnish the security bond as required or fails to appear before the officer or Authority during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the officer or Authority to proceed with the inquiry and thereupon such order as was proposed to be passed against him may be passed. 10.14. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 would indicate that before an order under Section 54, 55 or 56 is passed against any person, an officer acting under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 any of the said sections shall inform the person in writing of the general nature of the material allegation against him and gave him a reasonable opportunity of tending an explanation regarding them. If such a person who is sought to be externed makes an application for the examination of any witness produced by him, the Authority or officer concerned shall grant such application and examine such witness unless, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Authority or officer is of the opinion that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay. 10.15. Any written statement put in by such a person shall be filed with the record of the case, and such person shall be entitled to appear before the officer proceeding under Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963, by a legal practitioner for the purpose of tendering his explanation and examining the witnesses produced by him. 10.16. Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 deals with securing the attendance of any person against whom the order is proposed to be passed and for that purpose to secure bonds etc., Thus, in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 58 it is clear that what is required to be informed to the person who is sought to be externed is the general nature of the material allegation against him, which should be given in writing and a reasonable opportunity of tendering and explanation regarding it. 10.17. The statute requiring information of the general nature of material allegation, it is not sustainable for the Petitioner to contend that all reports and documents are required to be made available. 10.18. Looked at from another angle, the information required to be given under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 would require detailing the pending or disposed criminal proceedings, the allegations against the proposed externee and the possible reasons as to why the externment order is proposed to be made. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 10.19. Insofar as the pending or disposed matters, the externee would be well aware of the details thereof, being a party to those proceedings, the documents thereof would also be available with the proposed externee. As such, the question of providing details thereof would not arise. This would necessarily have to be caveated with the situation where the proposed externee is not a party to those proceedings and/or did not have access to the copies of the papers in those proceedings. In those circumstances it would be required for the concerned officer acting under Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963, to provide the papers of the proceedings. 10.20. Insofar as the police reports are concerned, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar's case full and complete disclosure of particulars would frustrate the very purpose of externment. Thus, in my considered opinion, providing of the police report would amount to full and complete disclosure, and those police report containing sensitive information, the Petitioner would not be entitled to the entire report/reports but would only be entitled to be informed of the general nature of the material allegation made against him. 10.21. Thus, I answer point No. 1 by holding that in cases relating to externment, all police reports and documents, including FIR, statements, charge sheet etc., are not required to be furnished to the person who is sought to be externed. General information of the material allegations, in the police report, documents, FIR, statements, charge sheet would have to be provided in writing to the person sought to be externed. 10.22. It is again reiterated that copies of those documents are not required to be provided. Whether the general nature of material allegations has been provided in the notice issued under Sub- section (1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 would be the subject matter of an appeal, if and when - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 59 of the KP Act, 1963. Since, the same would relate to disputed questions of fact, which would have to be considered by the Appellate Authority. 11. Answer to point No. 2: Whether there is a requirement in all cases for the Assistant Commissioner to consider and state as to whether witnesses have not come forward or would not come forward to depose against the person who is sought to be externed, if he continues to reside within the jurisdiction? …. …. …. 11.6. Asindicated, Supra, theconjunctive “and” having been used, the order of theAssistant Commissioner would have to be clear andcategorical and comply with the requirements ofSection 55 of the KP Act, 1963, which includes Clause (b)thereof. 11.7. The reason for the same is not far to see, since every person who commits an offence or is likely to commit an offence is not externed. The powers under Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 would have to be exercised in terms of Clause (a), where the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or in terms of Clause (b) as aforesaid. If powers are exercised under Clause (b) of Section 55, the conjunctive word “and” having been used, both the requirements aforesaid have to be complied with. 11.8. The matter would be different if the powers are exercised under Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Section 55, which do not require such a condition to be satisfied. 11.9. In the present case, though it is stated that the powers under Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 have been exercised, it is not clear as to whether it is under Clause (a), Clause (b) or Clause (c) [it cannot be Clause (c) since the same is not attracted]. The powers could have been exercised under Clause (a) or Clause (b), it - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 was required for the Assistant Commissioner to have categorically indicated as to under which provision the order was passed. 11.10. If it had been passed under Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963, in view of the use of the conjunctive “and” both the requirements would have to be satisfied. In the event of powers being exercised under Clause (a), externment could be made only if the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. 11.11. Since the disjunctive “or” has been used between Clause (a) and Clause (b) as indicated supra, the impugned order does not indicate under which provision the order has been passed to ascertain whether the requirement of that provision have been satisfied. 11.12. Hence, I answer point No. 2 by holding that, in all cases, there is no requirement for the Assistant Commissioner to consider and state as to whether witnesses have not come forward or would not come forward to depose against the person who is sought to be externed if he continues to reside within the jurisdiction. Since the same would not get attracted, if an order under Clause (a) of Section 55 is passed. Such an order would be required to be passed only if power is exercised under Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963. 12. Answer to point No. 3: Whether the principles of natural Justice have been followed in the present case? 12.1. Principles of natural Justice contemplate issuance of notice, providing an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order to be passed amongst other things. 12.2. In the present case, a notice has been issued to the Petitioner, he has been heard in the matter, and a reasoned order has been passed, thereby complying with the requirements of the principles of natural Justice. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 13. Answer to point No. 4: Whether there is any infirmity in the impugned order requiring this Court to intercede? 13.1. Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference; 60. Finality of orders.—Any order passed under Section 54, 55 or 56 or by the Government under section 59 shall not be called in question in any court except on the ground that the Authority making the order or any officer authorised by it had not followed the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of section 58 or that there was no material before the Authority concerned upon which it could have based its order or on the ground that the said Authority was not of opinion that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the person in respect of whom an order was made under section 55. 13.2. Though an appeal under Section 59 of the KP Act, 1963 has been provided, Section 60 provides for the scope of judicial review dehors the appellate remedy. This has probably having been provided since an order of externment directly impacts the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13.3. A perusal of Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 would indicate that any order passed under Section 54, 55 or 56 or by the Government under Section 59 of the KP Act, 1963 shall not be called in question by any Court except on the ground that the Authority making the order or any officer authorised by it had not followed the procedure laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 58 or that there was no material before the Authority concerned upon which it could have based its order or on the ground that the said Authority was not of opinion that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the person in respect of whom an order was made under Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 13.4. Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 again uses the disjunctive word “or” inasmuch as it is Section 54, 55 or 56 or by the Government under Section 59. If it was only Section 59 which had been used in Section 60, then an appeal would be the only remedy available for an order passed under Section 55. Since the disjunctive “or” has been used at any stage of the order i.e., if an order is passed under Section 54 or 55 or 56, then the same would be subject to judicial review under Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963. 13.5. Of course, an order under Section 59 i.e., an appeal, would always be subject to judicial review. However the judicial review is restricted to only a situation where the procedure laid down under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the KP Act, 1963 has not been followed or that there was no material before the Authority concerned upon which it could have based its order or on the ground there is said Authority was not of opinion that witness were unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public. The disjunctive “or” having been used all of them would have to be read separately and not together. 13.6. Though the submission of, Sri. Tharanath Poojari, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, is that in every order of externment it should be reflected that witnesses are not willing to come forward for an order of externment to be passed, I have dealt with the same in my answer to point No. 2 and indicated in what circumstances the same would apply. 13.7. Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 is worded in the negative; there has to be an opinion that witnesses are not unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public for Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963 to apply. The wording being as it is, I am of the considered opinion that the same would be relevant only if an externment order is passed under Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 and that is the reason why the disjunctive “or” has been used in Section 60 of the KP Act, 1963. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 13.8. Thus, again there was no reason for the Assistant Commissioner to have referred to witnesses coming forward or not to give evidence or otherwise unless the order has been passed under Clause (b) of Section 55 and as indicated supra the order does not indicate as to whether it has been passed under Section 55(a) or 55(b) i.e., only for that limited extent that there is an infirmity in the order requiring this Court to intercede. 14. Answer to point No. 5: What order? 14.1. In view of the findings above, the impugned order not disclosing whether it is passed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963. If it is an order under Clause (b) of Section 55 of the KP Act, 1963 the said order not disclosing the reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of offense, or an offence punished under Chapter XII, XVI and XVII of the Penal Code, 1860 or in the abatement of any such offence, and when in the opinion of such officer or witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public, I am of the considered opinion that the matter would have to be required to be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to pass a fresh order clearly and categorically indicating as to under which provision it has been passed and the order to satisfy the requirement of the said provision.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In the light of the issue standing answered on all its fours by the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench quoted supra, I deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 12-01-2026 and remit the matter back to the 2nd respondent to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and give an opportunity of hearing as obtaining under Section 58 of the Act. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20164 CRL.P No. 4488 of 2026 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The order dated 12-01-2026 passed by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner and Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mangalore produced as Document No.1 stands quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for the purpose of issuing a show cause and considering the reply or objections of the petitioner, which order shall be made within 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30