906-WP-4711-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4711 OF 2026 Rehana Abdul Hamid Mulani @ Rally Appa & Anr. …Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Vivek Shukla i/b. Mr. Dilip Gupta a/w. Mr. Ashok Shukla and Mr. Rohan Surve, for the Petitioner. Mrs. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondents-State. Mr. Vinod Tarmale, API, attached to Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai, present. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mrs. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the Respondents-State. 2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 11th September 2026 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate alias Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Circle-3, Dahisar (East), Mumbai, whereby, in exercise of powers under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page 1 Sonali 906-WP-4711-2026.DOC Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Petitioners have been directed to leave the area of Mumbai City for the period from 14th September 2026 to 25th September 2026, during which the Ganpati Festival is being celebrated, for the purpose of maintaining peace and for maintaining law and order. 3. It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that no notice whatsoever was given to the Petitioners before taking the impugned action. He submits that an Externment Order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959 had earlier been passed against Petitioner No.2, which was set aside by the learned Single Judge by order dated 10th December 2024 passed in Writ Petition (ST) No.11996 of 2024. He further submits that the present action has been taken on the very same grounds and therefore, the same is not tenable. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Yadav, learned APP, strongly opposes the Writ Petition. She submits that, as far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, 17 offences have been registered against her, including serious offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), bodily offences and robbery. Page 2 Sonali 906-WP-4711-2026.DOC As regards Petitioner No.2, she submits that 10 offences have been registered against him, including offences under the NDPS Act, bodily offences and robbery. She, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference and the Writ Petition be dismissed. 5. At the outset, it is required to be taken into consideration that the impugned action has been taken under Section 163 of the BNSS. Sub-Section (2) of Section 163 provides that an order under the said section may, in cases of emergency, or where the circumstances do not admit of the service, in due time, of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte. Thus, the provision itself contemplates passing of an ex parte order in the circumstances specified therein. 6. It is further required to be noted that Sub-Section (4) of Section 163 of the BNSS provides that no order made under the said section shall remain in force for more than two months from the date of making thereof. The said period of two months may be extended for a further period of six months in the circumstances Page 3 Sonali 906-WP-4711-2026.DOC set out in the proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 163 of the BNSS. 7. As far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, 17 offences have been registered against her, including serious offences under the NDPS Act, bodily offences and robbery. As regards Petitioner No.2, 10 offences have been registered against him, including offences under the NDPS Act, bodily offences and robbery. 8. In this particular case, the impugned order operates only for the period from 14th September 2026 to 25th September 2026, i.e. during the period of the Ganpati Festival. Thus, it cannot be said that the power under Section 163 of the BNSS has been exercised without application of mind and in arbitrary manner. 9. As regards the contention that externment action had earlier been taken against Petitioner No.2 on the same ground and that the said action was set aside, it is relevant to note that the Externment Order was set aside by the learned Single Judge order dated 10th December 2024 passed in Writ Petition (ST) No.11996 of 2024. While setting aside the said order, the Court noted, inter Page 4 Sonali 906-WP-4711-2026.DOC alia, the considerable time gap between the registration of the offences and the Externment Order and that the area of externment was excessive. In any event, the power exercised under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959 is distinct from the power exercised under Section 163 of the BNSS, particularly having regard to the limited period for which the impugned order operates. 10. It is required to be noted that there are 17 offences have been registered against Petitioner No.1, whereas 10 offences have been registered against Petitioner No.2. 11. The impugned order also makes reference to confidential intelligence received by the police authorities. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no illegality or irregularity is found in passing the impugned order. 13. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order in Page 5 Sonali 906-WP-4711-2026.DOC exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 6 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.09.19 12:52:27 +0530