Bombay High Court
Bhushan Ravindra @ Ravi Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 24 April, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:13070-DB
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1895 OF 2024
Bhushan Ravindra @ Ravi Patil
Age: 28 years, Occu.: Agriculture
R/o. Adgaon, Tq. Erandol,
District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Sub - Divisional Magistrate,
Erandol, Tq. Erandol,
Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon.
2. Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Chalisgaon, Sub - Division,
Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon.
3. Assistant Police Inspector,
Kasoda Police Station,
Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon. .. Respondents
...
Mr. M. V. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for the respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 24 APRIL 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M. V. Salunke for the petitioner and
learned APP Mr. A. M. Phule for the respondents - State.
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally
with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 06.11.2024
passed by respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erandol, Jalgaon
under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, by invoking the
powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that in the
impugned order passed on 06.11.2024, respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate has considered four cases. Out of them, one is chapter case.
The cases pending since 2011 have been considered for externing the
petitioner from entire Jalgaon District. The impugned order dated
06.11.2024, in fact, appears to have been based on one Chapter Case
bearing No.48 of 2023, as one of the point which was taken for
consideration is whether two years time has elapsed from commission of
last offence. One more fact that is required to be considered in this
matter is the notice that was given to the petitioner under Section 59 of
the Maharashtra Police Act on 22.12.2023. Reply was filed by the
present petitioner on 10.01.2024, yet the impugned order came to be
passed after a period of ten months. The said delay has not been
explained by respondent No.1 in his affidavit. It is not in dispute that the
present petitioner is connected to political party i.e. Nationalist Congress
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), however, with an intention which was
politically motivated, the belated action has been taken to keep the
petitioner away from Jalgaon at the time of Assembly Elections. These
acts would certainly curtail the rights of liberty of the petitioner and,
therefore, direct writ petition before this Court is maintainable. This Court
by on 18.11.2024 had passed detailed order and granted stay to the
impugned order. The said order deserves to be then confirmed by setting
aside the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposes the petition and once
again raises the point of maintainability of the writ petition. He states
that since the appeal has been provided under Section 60 of the
Maharashtra Police Act challenging the impugned order passed under
Section 56 and the appeal would lie before the State Government, the
writ petition is not maintainable. The second objection that is again
raised is in view of Chapter XVII Rule 18 (23) of Appellate Side Rules of
this Court, the matter would lie before Hon'ble the Single Bench of this
Court. He relies on the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Manishkumar s/o
Atmaram Gaikwad, Sub Divisional Officer, Erandol Division, District
Jalgaon. He reiterated the same facts which are there in the impugned
order and further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender against
whom offences against human body are registered. Even after his arrest,
he is indulging frequently in the commission of such offences. He is
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
creating terror and fear in the mind of common masses. For the delay,
he submits that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
12.12.2023 which was served through Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Chalisgaon on 22.12.2023. The Sub Divisional Police Officer had
received the matter on 08.03.2024. On the same day, the matter was
kept for hearing and the petitioner was present, but sought time for
arguing the matter. It was then kept on 28.03.2024. On that day, he
remained absent. On 03.04.2024, his Advocate appear and filed
Vakalatnama and sought time for submitting written arguments. Written
arguments were supposed to be submitted on 19.04.2024, however, on
19.04.2024, there was General Election of Loksabha and therefore,
further date was given on 27.06.2024. On that day, the petitioner was
absent. The next date was fixed on 18.07.2024, on which day
adjournment was sought. Final opportunity was given to the petitioner
on 12.09.2024. Written arguments as well as oral arguments were
submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner on 26.09.2024.
Matter was posted for orders on 03.10.2024, but respondent No.1 was
busy with Vidhan Sabha Elections. The impugned order came to be
passed on 06.11.2024. Therefore, there is no delay in passing the order.
6. At the outset, for the two points i.e. provision of appeal under
Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act and the matter to lie before
Hon'ble the Single Bench of this Court, this Court on 18.11.2024 has
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
passed the detailed order. We reiterate those reasons in the present
judgment also and in addition to that we would like to consider the fact
that when the petitioner had appeared in the matter after the show cause
notice was given, apart from reply, the petitioner had submitted surety as
directed by respondent No.1. It was till the conclusion of externment
inquiry. The entire impugned order does not say that there was any
breach of surety by the present petitioner during the said period of 10
months. We would like to consider the point of delay here itself. It
appears that respondent No.1 had not considered the purpose for which
the power has been given under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police
Act to him. If a person is doing illegal activities and those illegal activities
are detrimental to the public at large and the Government used to
prevent such activities by the petitioner, then such proceedings should
be concluded as early as possible. General public should get relief from
such acts which are stated to be detrimental to them, but respondent
No.1 while considering the present matter has approached a regular
mode and even given longer dates. The authority itself has not made
the difference between the preventive proceedings and the regular
proceedings and, therefore, the reason tried to be given for the delay is
absolutely not convincing. Another point that is raised is all the offences
are stated to have taken place within Kasoda Police Station, Taluka
Erandol, District Jalgaon. Then there ought to have been a thought and
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
the reasons in the impugned order as to why respondent No.1 wants to
extern the petitioner from the entire District. No doubt, the proposal that
was given was externing him for two years from District Jalgaon, Dhule,
Nandurbar, Nashik, Aurangabad and Buldhana. There is no logic behind
such proposal and acceptance of that proposal even to the extent of the
entire District Jalgaon. The activities which are not reported in the entire
district stated to be by petitioner beyond Kasoda Police Station, cannot
be considered at all. Such orders therefore violates the fundamental
rights of a citizen. The fundamental rights to move freely in the entire
country including Jalgaon district are then affected. Further, the
respondents are not denying that the petitioner is working for a political
party. Then externing him from the district where he is carrying out the
activity of his political party at the time of election process would also
affects prejudicially on the rights of the petitioner. We will not hesitate in
observing that the impugned order appears to be politically motivated,
which even takes note of the offences which have been filed against the
petitioner since 2011. Further, if we consider the chart that has been
given, in the show cause notice, it does not mention Crime No.01 of
2011 registered with Kasoda Police Station, which has then been
considered in the impugned order. In the reply dated 10.01.2024, the
petitioner has stated that he was minor when that offence was registered
and he has been acquitted by a competent Court, still the said case has
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
been considered. The consideration of these offences without giving
opportunity to the petitioner to explain also affects the petitioner
prejudicially. The offences which have been considered by respondent
Nos.2 are Crime No.103 of 2019, Crime No.106 of 2021 and the
impugned order is passed on 06.11.2024. Thus, the old cases are also
considered for the act of externment without considering the fact that no
action was taken immediately after registration of these offences.
Another point to be noted is that the chart has been given in the show
cause notice would show that the petitioner was involved in offences
under Section 353 etc. in two matters and Sections 143, 323 etc. in one
matter and Section 324 etc. in another matter. No note has been taken
as to when the applicant was released on bail. If there was any violation
of the conditions for bail, the police or the prosecution ought to have
taken the recourse available under law for cancellation of bail, but
instead of that as aforesaid, since there is a political background, it
appears that the impugned order has been passed, which is certainly
against the principles and affecting the fundamental rights of the
petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable that too before this
Court i.e. Division Bench and for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order is passed :-
ORDER
I) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
wp-1895-2024-J.odt
II) The impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by
respondent No.1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erandol under Section
56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
III) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
