Bombay High Court
Shubham Rajkumar Khelbude vs The Divisional Commissioner And Others on 16 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:10995
1 Cri.WP.2013-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2013 OF 2024
Shubham Rajkumar Khelbude,
Age 24 years, Occu. Education,
R/o 2-12-351, Harish Apartment,
Flat No.60, Bandaghat, Nanded,
Taluka and District Nanded. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Chha. Sambhajinagar,
Divisional Commissioner Office at
Chha. Sambhajinagar,
Tq. and District Chha. Sambhajinagar.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent of Police Office,
Nanded, District Nanded.
3. Police Inspector,
Police Station Ardhapur,
Tq. Ardhapur and District Nanded. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav D. Karande.
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. M. Ganachari.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
RESERVED ON : 08.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.04.2025.
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2 Cri.WP.2013-24.odt
2. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging
judgment and order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent
No.1/Divisional Commissioner confirming order of externment
for one year passed by respondent No.2/Superintendent of
Police under Section 55 of Maharashtra Police Act (hereinafter
referred to as "Act" for sake of brevity and convenience). He is
found to have indulged in illegal activities creating terror in the
vicinity being part of a gang. His activities are found to be
detrimental to the public peace. Hence, he is directed to
remove himself outside of the area of Nanded district for one
year. The subjective satisfaction is founded on offence Crime
No.174 of 2019 and Crime No.282 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel Mr. V. D. Karande for the petitioner
submits that both the orders are illegal and there was no
material to resort to action under Section 55 of the Act. It is
submitted that petitioner was acquitted in Special Case No.94
of 2020 emanating from Crime No.174 of 2019 and he was
enlarged on bail in Crime No.282 of 2023. It is submitted that
he is not concerned with any gang. Impugned action is
arbitrary and perverse because documentary evidence is not
taken into account. It is further submitted that impugned
3 Cri.WP.2013-24.odt
action was taken against him without following due procedure
of law. There is a violation of principle of natural justice.
4. Per contra, learned APP supports impugned order on the
basis of affidavit-in-reply. He would submit that all the
members of the gang were proceeded along with the petitioner
and they were externed. It is submitted that reply given by the
petitioner to the notice does not spell out any ground or
mitigating circumstances. It is further submitted that due
procedure of law was followed and after extending
opportunity, impugned action was taken. It is submitted that
the material available against the petitioner is serious in nature
to justify the externment.
5. Having considered rival submissions of the parties,
externment order under challenge is founded on Crime No.174
of 2019 and Crime No.282 of 2023. Petitioner was acquitted
in Special Case No.94 of 2020 arising out of Crime No.174 of
2019. Another offence has been investigated and charge sheet
has also been filed and matter is at the stage of framing of the
charge.
6. Interestingly, order dated 17.05.2024 passed by
respondent No.2 shows that six persons were proceeded with
4 Cri.WP.2013-24.odt
including the petitioner for action under Section 55 of the Act.
The selfsame offences are pitted against them also as they are
shown to be co-accused in those offences. In case of few of
them, more offences are pressed into service. This is indicative
of the fact that petitioner and other externee operate a gang
and indulged in illegal activities as a member of gang. The
offences are serious in nature which are covered by Chapter
XII, XVI and XVII of the IPC.
7. Petitioner was acquitted from the first offence vide
judgment and order dated 18.10.2023. But, that does not
mitigate his detrimental activity because he is still facing
prosecution in Crime No.282 of 2023, registered with
Ardhapur Police Station. The offence is serious in nature
showing road robbery with the use of weapon by forming a
gang. I find that there is cogent material available against him
for taking action under Section 55 of the Act.
8. The proposal was submitted by Police Inspector on
14.12.2023. A report was prepared by Sub Divisional Police
Officer on 02.04.2024. Notice was issued on 15.02.2024 to the
petitioner. He filed reply on 16.02.2024. Thereafter, petitioner
was called upon to remain present before the competent
authority. After extending opportunity of hearing, impugned
5 Cri.WP.2013-24.odt
order was passed on 17.05.2024. I do not find that there is
any procedural lapses or violation of principles of natural
justice.
9. After considering relevant material, both the authorities
have concurrently held that petitioner is liable to be externed.
I do not find any material irregularity or perversity in passing
impugned order. Considering magnitude of the activities and
the potential of the petitioner and the others, he is externed
from entire Nanded District. Both the authorities have rightly
arrived at the conclusions. I find that no case is made out by
the petitioner to cause any indulgence.
10. Criminal writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No order as to costs.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
...
vmk/-
