Bombay High Court
Akash Ramesh Mahto vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Sub ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:5135
1 wp10.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.10/2025
Akash Ramesh Mahto,
aged about 34 Yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o Pipri, Kanhan, Distt. Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Kamthi Division, Kanhan,
Distt. Nagpur. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kavita H. Bhondge, A.P.P. for the respondents.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 5.5.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 8.5.2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of
externment dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional
2 wp10.2025
Magistrate, Ramtek, District Nagpur thereby externing the
petitioner for a period of six months from the entire district. The
Superintendent of Police, Nagpur District (Rural), Nagpur had
submitted an externment proposal dated 30.10.2024 under the
Police Station Kanhan Pipri, Tahsil Parshivni, District Nagpur
against the proposal of externee i.e. present petitioner under
Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 for a term
of 2 years ousting him from Nagpur (City) and Nagpur District
Rural to the present respondent No.1-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Ramtek. The proposed externee is a resident of Mouja Kanhan
Pipri, Tahsil Parshivni, District Nagpur and is a fearless and
daring criminal. He has committed crimes like murder, robbery,
attempt to murder, aggravated theft, possession of firearms, sand
theft and bodily offences. Total 10 crimes are registered against
the petitioner at Police Station, Kanhan. The preventive action
was taken against him but there was no improvement in the
behaviour of the petitioner. Even after taking the preventive
action he had committed the offences and, therefore, the order
3 wp10.2025
was passed to extern him form the Nagpur District Rural and
Urban.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has
contended that the show cause notice as well as the order is passed
without any satisfaction expressed by the victims and witnesses
were not willing to come-forward to make a compliant or lodge a
report against the petitioner. Though the petitioner was acquitted
in 6 offences out of 10, said offences are also considered while
passing the externment order. Hence he has prayed to quash and
set aside the impugned order passed by the authority.
4. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that in order to
maintain law and order and public peace in the area and to
prevent injury and danger to the life and property of the people it
was necessary to extern the petitioner from the limits of Nagpur
district. According to him, the petitioner is habitual of
committing repeated crimes and, therefore, the recurrence of
4 wp10.2025
crimes cannot be ruled out. Hence he has prayed to dismiss the
petition.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. On perusal of the order and the notices issued under
Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act it appears that in
the notice there is no whisper that the witnesses are not willing to
come-forward to give evidence in public against said person by
reason of apprehension to them as regards the safety of their
persons or property. In order dated 10.12.2024 cursorily it is
mentioned that the witnesses are not ready to come-forward to
give evidence in Court and not to disclose the names of the
witnesses. The statements of confidential witnesses "A" and "B"
are not mentioned in the order even the copies of the statements
are not provided to the petitioner.
7. On perusal of said statements it appears that there is
5 wp10.2025
no subjective satisfaction about the witnesses not willing to come-
forward to give evidence against the petitioner in public.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay @ Golu Shyam
Solanki V/s. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2019
ALL MR (Cri) 702 particularly para 3 which reads thus:-
"Petition deserves to be allowed on a very short
ground. Perusal of Section 56 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, would reveal that, when jurisdiction is
sought to be exercised under Section 56(1)(B), it is
necessary that, the authority exercising its jurisdiction
should arrive at subjective satisfaction that a 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
Indian Penal Code, 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."
9. As there is no whisper in the notices issued under
Section 56(3) of the Act and in the order of detention, it is
6 wp10.2025
cursorily mentioned about unwillingness of the witnesses, it is not
sufficient for arriving the subjective satisfaction.
10. The authority has relied on 10 offences which are
committed by the petitioner. On perusal of the reply filed by the
petitioner and the documents filed on record it seen that out of 10
offences the petitioner is acquitted in 6 offences which is not
considered while passing the externment order. Though it is
mentioned by the petitioner in his reply that he is acquitted in
said 6 offences it is not considered while passing the externment
order. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Bibansingh S/o Dalsingh Bawari and others V/s. The
State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri)
3655 wherein reliance is placed by this Court on the judgment in
the case of Abdul Kadir Razzague Beg V/s. The Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Nasik and others reported in 1991 Cri. L.J. 1725
wherein it is observed that the externment order is set aside by the
Division Bench of this Court only on the ground that the said
order is passed totally ignoring the fact of acquittal of serious
7 wp10.2025
charges under Indian Penal Code by the Court. It was held by
this Court that the impugned orders were suffering from
non-application of mind and hence they were liable to be set
aside. In the instant case also, though the petitioner was acquitted
in 6 offences out of 10, the same was not considered by the
respondent authority. Hence the impugned order passed by the
respondent authority is quashed and set aside.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/05/2025 11:38:59
