15. CRI. WP 469 of 2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.469/2026 Tejas Sunil Ghodichor ...Versus… The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. R.S. Dhengre, Advocate h/f Mr. M.P. Ladhe, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.M. Ghogre, APP for respondents/State CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 31/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order of externment dated 29/05/2025, passed by the Externing Authority/Superintendent of Police, Bhandara by which the petitioner came to be externed out of Bhandara District for a period of two years. The petitioner has thereafter filed an appeal bearing Appeal No.50/2026 before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17/06/2026. 2. Advocate Mr. Dhengre, holding for Mr. Ladhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly externed without recording any appropriate satisfaction by the Externing Authority. The requirements of Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 were not fulfilled and as such the order of externment passed by the Externing Authority/Superintendent of Police, Bhandara suffers from irregularity and the same needs to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel further submits that the 2026:BHC-NAG:11604 15. CRI. WP 469 of 2026.odt 2 petitioner is shown to be a gang leader, however, there is no such evidence to show that the petitioner is a gang leader or any so-called gang exists. Other two externees, namely, Mohit Madame and Monarch Shende are shown to be involved with the present petitioner only in one crime i.e. Crime No.565/2023 and they are not shown to be accused along with petitioner in other two crimes registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has given sufficient explanation to the Externing Authority in pursuance to the show-cause notice, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara, however, the same is not taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner was released on bail in the offences registered against him vide Crime No.573/2024 and Crime No.199/2025. The said fact is also not taken into consideration by the Externing Authority while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it fails to take into consideration the relevant factors, which are material to decide the externment proceeding and considered the facts which are irrelevant. The learned Appellate Authority has also failed to take into consideration the ground raised in the appeal. The Divisional Commissioner, without going into merits of the grounds raised therein, has mechanically dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Externing Authority. The petitioner has specifically raised a ground that the petitioner has been released on bail in other crimes registered against him and there was no such alarming situation which could have called for an immediate externment of the entire gang. The impugned orders passed by 15. CRI. WP 469 of 2026.odt 3 both the learned Authorities below are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Ghogre, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State strongly opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner was found to be a gang leader, who is involved continuously in bodily offences, falling under Chapter-16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also been prosecuted for an offence of committing murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC, another offence, which was registered for attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC and also one offence of committing robbery under Section 309 (6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioner is a habitual criminal. There are statements of secret witnesses recorded by the Externing Authority, which state that the activities of the present petitioner along with his gang members are creating an alarming danger, which can result in disturbance of public order and hence, the Superintendent of Police after taking into consideration the report, submitted by the Enquiry Officer as well as the reply submitted by the petitioner, in pursuance to the show-cause notice, has passed the impugned order of externment. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that even after the petitioner was externed for a period of two years from Bhandara District, the petitioner was again found entering the Bhandara District and as such two offences were registered against him even after his externment order, one as Crime No.1226/2025 on 24/11/2025 another as Crime No.169/2026 on 03/03/2026. Thus, after taking the 15. CRI. WP 469 of 2026.odt 4 preventive action against the petitioner, there was no change in the conduct of the petitioner and as such, it was found necessary for the Externing Authority to extern the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order of externment was passed. 6. The Divisional Commissioner has also considered in detail the crimes registered against the petitioner, which are all offences affecting the human body and the satisfaction recorded by the Externing Authority and hence, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, thereby maintaining the order of externment passed by the Externing Authority. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offences, in which the petitioner is found to be involved, the impugned orders do not call for any interference of this Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore, prays for dismissing the petition. 7. I have gone through the impugned order dated 29/05/2025, passed by the Externing Authority/ Superintendent of Police, Bhandara and the order dated 17/06/2026, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No.50/2026. Perusal of the order dated 29/05/2025 would show that the petitioner is found to be involved in Crime No.565/2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC with other offences, Crime No.573/2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC with other offences and Crime No.199/2025 registered for committing robbery with other offences under Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioner along with other two accused persons is alleged to have formed a gang and has been entertaining unlawful designs so as to commit fear and danger 15. CRI. WP 469 of 2026.odt 5 in the vicinity. The Externing Authority has also taken into consideration the statements of the secret witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer, wherein it is specifically stated that the activities of the petitioner have created an alarming danger to the peace and tranquility of the vicinity and there is every likelihood that the activities of the petitioner may endanger to the public order. The satisfaction is recorded by the Externing Authority by specifically referring to the continuing activities of the petitioner and the gang members, which are all bodily offences. A specific reference is made to the offences registered against the petitioner and the Externing Authority thereafter arrived at a conclusion that even preventive action taken against the petitioner did not get any fruitful result and the petitioner and the gang even thereafter again engaged themselves into criminal activities. The Externing Authority has thus appeared to have applied his mind to the material available on record and arrived at a subjective satisfaction. Sufficiency of such material cannot be gone into by the Court and it is for the Externing Authority to decide the same. The Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner had also gone into details of the offences registered against the present petitioner and has also found that the Externing Authority has recorded satisfaction on the continuous unlawful activities engaged by the petitioner along with his gang members, which is likely to disturb the public order and as such has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein. 8. I do not find any error committed by the Externing Authority/Superintendent of Police, Bhandara while passing the order of externment as well as Divisional 15. CRI. WP 469 of 2026.odt 6 Commissioner, Nagpur while deciding the appeal. 9. The reply filed by the State Government further shows that despite of the externment order passed by the Exeterning Authority dated 29/05/2025, the petitioner is found to have entered in the Bhandara District twice and two offences are registered against him one being Crime No.1226/2025 registered under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act on 24/11/2025 and another Crime No.169/2026 for the offences punishable under the Arms Act on 03/03/2026. Thus, it appears that continuous unlawful activities have been taken into consideration by the Externing Authority, who has passed the impugned order of externment. 10. The petitioner has thus failed to make out a case for interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is, therefore, devoid of substance and merits and is hereby dismissed. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) Wadkar Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 03/09/2026 14:49:48