Bombay High Court

Rohan Roshan Bahuriya vs Sdpo Sub Division Mul on 12 November, 2025

1/8 36.wp833.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 833 OF 2025
Rohan s/o Roshan Bahuriya
Vs.
SDPO, Sub-Division Mul, Dist. Chandrapur and Ors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwan N. Lonare, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 12.11.2025

Heard.

2. The petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenges the order dated
02.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2 and the order
dated 07.10.2025 passed by respondent No.3 wherein the
petitioner was externed from Chandrapur District for a
period of two years. The appeal preferred under Section
60 of the Maharashtra Police Act was dismissed by
respondent No.3. Both these orders are under challenge
before this Court in the present petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner
and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nos.1 to 3/State.

Prity
2/8 36.wp833.2025

4. The learned counsel for petitioner submits
that there is no common crime which has been committed
by the present petitioner with all other persons who have
been named in the externment order. He invited my
attention to the chart, showing the crimes committed by
the present petitioner where the last crime is shown to be
committed i.e. Crime No.1331/2023 on 23.12.2023.
Thereby stale crimes have been considered as the last
crime was committed on 23.12.2023, however, the order is
passed on 02.10.2024 i.e. after almost ten months. So far
as other persons are concerned, he submits that all have
been shown as 'Gang Leader'.

5. He further invited my attention to the notice
issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
wherein there is no reference to in-camera statements
recorded by the police officials. However, he submits that
there is a reference of in-camera statements in the
impugned order and therefore, the opportunity of hearing
is denied in this regard. There is non- application of mind
by the authorities and therefore, the impugned order is
bad in law.

6. On the other hand, the learned APP submits
that the order is passed under Section 55 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. The persons against whom the
order is passed are hardcore criminals as there are several

Prity
3/8 36.wp833.2025

serious offences which are registered against them. He
submits that the present petitioner is shown as a 'gang
leader' and even other persons are also shown as 'gang
leader'. He further submits that there is a common crime
i.e. Crime No.1331/2023 between present petitioner and
one Prem Pappa Bahuriya and Abhishek Narayan
Nakawar. Even Crime No.196/2022 was committed along
with Prem Pappa Bahuriya and Crime No.1013/2022 was
committed along with Kaushik Shankar Dongre. All these
crimes are serious in nature and have direct impact on the
society and therefore, submits that the respondent No.2
was justified in passing the order.

7. He further submits that though the notice
issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act
does not state about in-camera statements, however, that
by itself will not come in the way of respondent No.2 for
passing the impugned order. Both the authorities i.e.
Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur - respondent No.2,
as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur -
respondent No. 3, have considered the entire record which
was placed before them and after arriving at subjective
satisfaction have passed the orders.

8. Upon hearing both the parties at length it is
not in dispute that the impugned order is passed under
Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The record

Prity
4/8 36.wp833.2025

shows that all persons against whom the order of
externment is passed are shown as 'gang leader'. It is true
that there are some common offences between the
petitioner, another gang leader Prem so also another gang
leader Kaushik. However, those offences are stale offences
as those are registered either in the year 2022 or in the
year 2023. Under such circumstances, if the date of order
of externment is considered then there is hardly any live
link between the last offence committed by the petitioner
and the order passed by respondent No.2. The very
purpose of externment is frustrated as stale offences are
considered.

9. The another important point which goes to
the root of the matter is the notice issued under Section 59
which does not state about the recording of in-camera
statements. However, in the impugned order dated
02.10.2024, there is reference of recording of two in-
camera statements. Under such circumstances, the
petitioner could not get opportunity to answer to the
material allegations made against him. The learned
counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment delivered
by this Court on 09.09.2025 in Criminal Writ Petition
No.670/2025 in the case of Asgar @ Azhar Khan @
Bablu Don Vs. State of Maharashtra , in para No.15, 16, 17
and 18 : -

Prity
5/8 36.wp833.2025

"15. So far as in-camera statements are concerned, the
show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 dated
08.04.2024 does not disclose recording of in-camera
statements. However, the report submitted to respondent
No.1 by respondent No.2, Clause 3 of the same
discloses about recording of in-camera statements of
witnesses.

16. However, when the notice itself does not indicate
that in-camera statements were recorded, then it can be
said that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to
put-forth his case and to counter the allegations in the
in-camera statements and therefore he was deprived of
his rights.

17. It is needless to mention that strict compliance of
Section 59 of the Act of 1951 is required to be made. It is
further to be noted that the order of externment deprives
the citizen of his fundamental right of free movement
throughout the territory of India.

18. So far as the impugned order is concerned, no
subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the Externing
Authority either on in-camera statements or on the
offences committed by the petitioner. Bare perusal of the
impugned orders depicts that respondent No.1 has only
reproduced the contents from the report of respondent
No.2. There is no independent application of mind, nor
there is subjective satisfaction. It is to be borne in mind
that as it is a question of personal liberty of a person,
same cannot be taken away in such a casual manner. The
best example of non-application of mind by respondent
No.1 is that, it is observed in the impugned order that
crimes at Serial Nos. 3 to 7 are pending for further
adjudication in the Court. It is further observed that
though the petitioner in his say has submitted that in
crimes at Serial Nos. 3 to 5 in the chart, he was acquitted,
however in support of this, the petitioner has not placed

Prity
6/8 36.wp833.2025

anything on record. It is necessary to mention at this
juncture that all the copies of acquittal are placed by the
petitioner before respondent No.2 during inquiry under
Section 59 of the said Act. It is further necessary to
mention that there is only a passing reference to
recording of two in-camera statements, however there is
nothing to show that those in-camera statements are
considered in order to arrive at subjective satisfaction.
There is no whisper about the same. Section 59 enquiry,
vitiated, as enquiry was not condcuted on the facts.
Though formality of giving notice is completed, but the
respondent No.2 has not taken pains to state in the
notice dated 08.04.2024 about receiving of incamera
statements. Further, after the reply filed by the petitioner
to the show cause notice dated 08.04.2024, respondent
No.2 submitted his report dated 20.04.2024, even in
that report, it is not stated that out of eight crimes,
petitioner was acquitted in five crimes. Further, it is to be
noted that stale crimes are taken into consideration
though last crime was shown to be committed in the year
2023. It is to be noted that the last crime committed by
the petitioner on 05.03.2023. Notice under Section 59
of the said Act was issued by respondent No.2 on
20.04.2024. Reply to the same was submitted by the
petitioner along with documents. Again respondent No.1
issued show cause notice on 17.05.2024. Reply to the
said notice was submitted on 17.10.2024. However, the
order was passed o 07.04.2025. Therefore, from the date
of the issuance of notice under Section 59 of the said Act
till passing of the final order dated 07.04.2025, the
respondent No.1 has taken almost one year. Therefore,
from the date of last committed crime till the passing of
the final order, almost two years have lapsed and
therefore, the very object of externing the petitioner was
frustrated. The order of externment cannot be passed on
the basis of these stale crimes and therefore, live link of
these crimes and the order of externment would get
completely snapped. It is further to be noted that the

Prity
7/8 36.wp833.2025

respondent No.1 relied upon the stale crimes to form his
subjective satisfaction and therefore, the respondent
No.1 miserably failed to take into consideration the very
object of Section 56 of the said Act."

10. This Court time and again has observed that
compliance of Section 59 in accordance with law is
mandatory. Giving a go by to the enquiry contemplated
under Section 59 would vitiate the entire proceedings. In
the present case, it is an admitted fact that though the
notices were issued under Section 59, however, there is no
reference of in-camera statements in the said notice. On
the other hand, the impugned order dated 02.10.2024
goes to show that the in-camera statements are recorded
and respondent No.2 has duly considered and relied on
the said in-camera statements. When the notice issued to
the petitioner under Section 59 does not refer to any of
the statements recorded by the sponsoring authority, it
would amount to denial of opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner as he was unable to answer the contents of in-
camera statements or rather he was unable to answer to the
allegations made in in-camera statements.

11. For the aforesaid reason impugned orders
suffer from non-application of mind. Even the appellate
authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, failed to consider
the contentions which are raised in appeal which would
demonstrate that the petitioner has been denied the

Prity
8/8 36.wp833.2025

opportunity of hearing. Further, there is no live link
between the date of registration of last crime committed
by the petitioner and the date of impugned order.

12. Considering these vital aspects, I deem it
appropriate to quash and set aside both the orders, hence,
the following order :
ORDER

a) The order dated 02.10.2024, passed by respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur in externment Case No.3303/2024 (Chandrapur) against the petitioner and order dated 07.10.2024, passed by respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur in Appeal No.98/2025 are hereby quashed and set aside.

b) The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

(M.M. Nerlikar, J.)

Signed by: Mrs. PrityPrity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/11/2025 19:15:36