Bombay High Court
Yogesh Motiram Tare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 October, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:42549
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
Arun Sankpal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1211 OF 2025
Yogesh Motiram Tare
Age: 36 years, Occ. Business,
R/at Gopal Niwas, Near Shivaji
Maharaj Chowk, Kalher,
Tal. Bhiwandi, District Thane
..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary (Appeal & Security)
Home Department, Second Floor,
Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru
Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone -2, Bhiwandi.
...Respondents
Mr. Rushikesh Kale, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Malshe, APP, for the Respondent-State.
ARUN
Mr. Manik Holkar, API, Narpoli Police Station present.
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2025.10.06
DATED : 3rd OCTOBER 2025
10:52:01 +0530
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
2. This Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of an order
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 13 th January
2025, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an
externment order came to be dismissed by affirming the externment
order dated 6th November 2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Bhiwandi, under Section 56(1) (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra
Police Act 1951 ("the Act, 1951").
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be stated
as under:
3.1 Since June 2021, offences affecting human body and property
were registered against the Petitioner at Narpoli Police Station. Alleging
that the movements and acts of the Petitioner were causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property and
there were reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner was
engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence and
against human body and property and the witnesses were not willing to
come forward to give evidence in public against the Petitioner on
account of the reign of terror created by the Petitioner, externment
proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. A show cause notice
under Section 59 of the Act, 1951, was given, and an opportunity of
hearing was provided to the Petitioner.
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
3.2 The Competent Authority, after considering the antecedents of the
Petitioner, three crimes registered against the Petitioner at Narpoli Police
Station and the confidential statements of two witnesses, recorded a
satisfaction that on account of the terror created by the Petitioner, the
witnesses were not coming forward to give evidence against the
Petitioner in public and the acts of the Petitioner were causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the persons or property,
ordered the externment of the Petitioner from the limits of Thane
District for a period of one year, under Section 56(1) (a) and (b) of the
Act, 1951.
3.3 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner, under Section 60 of the Act, 1951.
3.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the Divisional
Commissioner dismissed the Appeal observing that, there was adequate
material to justify the externment of the Petitioner.
4. The Petitioner has thus invoked the writ jurisdiction.
5. I have heard Mr. Rushikesh Kale, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, and Mr. P.P. Malshe, the learned APP, for the Respondents-
State, at some length. I have also perused the material on record.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that in order to ascertain the
justifiability of the order of externment, this Court directed the
Respondents-State to tender for the perusal of the Court, the in-camera
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
statements of the witnesses on the strength of which the externment
order came to be passed.
7. An Affidavit has been filed by Mr. Shashikant Borate, the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone II, Bhiwandi, expressing the inability of
the State to place on record the copies of the statements of the
confidential witnesses. It is inter alia asserted that the statements of the
witnesses could not be traced as the record came to be shifted from one
place to another.
8. Mr. Kale submitted that, it is extremely doubtful whether the
statements were placed before the Deputy Commissioner of Police who
passed the order and the Appellate Authority. Inviting attention of the
Court to the externment order, Mr Kale would urge that the three crimes
registered against the Petitioners, even if taken at their face value, do
not justify an inference that the acts and conduct of the Petitioner would
fall within the dragnet of either Clauses (a) or (b) of Section 56(1) of
the Act, 1951. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed
and set aside.
9. In opposition to this, Mr. Malshe, the learned APP, supported the
impugned orders. It was submitted that the Competent Authority has
referred to gist of the statements of the confidential witnesses and,
therefore, the inability of the State to place on record those statements
does not detract materially from the order of externment.
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
10. An order of externment impinges upon the personal liberty of a
citizen guaranteed under the Constitution of India. An order of
externment is an extraordinary measure. For invoking Clause (a), sub-
Section (1) of Section 56 there must be objective material on record on
the basis of which the Competent Authority must record its subjective
satisfaction that the movements or acts of the person proposed to be
externed are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to
persons or property. To justify an action under Clause (b), there must be
an objective material on the basis of which the Competent Authority
must record its subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in
the commission of offences involving force or violence or offences
punishable under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code.
11. The mere fact that few offences have been registered against the
Externee which fall within the ambit of the Clause (b) of sub-Section (1)
of Section 56 by itself is not sufficient to pass an externment order. It is
incumbent upon the Competent Authority to record a satisfaction that
the order of externment is passed invoking Clause (b) of sub-Section (1)
of Section 56 of the Act, 1951, that witnesses are not willing to give
evidence against the person proposed to be externed, as they apprehend
threat to their safety and property. (Deepak Laxman Dongre Vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors1)
1 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9032 of 2021.
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
12. It appears that the following three crimes have been registered
against the Petitioner.
Sr. C.R. No. Offences punishable under:
No.
1 Narpoli Police Station Sections 353, 332, 201, 143, 174,
CR No. 400/2021 149, 427, 504, 506, 188, 269 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act and
Section 51(b) of the Disaster
Management Act.
2 Narpoli Police Station Sections 354, 323, 427, 504 read
CR No. 907/2023. with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3 Narpoli Police Station Sections 325, 324,323, 143, 144,
CR No. 1036/2023. 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 37(1) read with
Section 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act.
13. Out of the aforesaid crimes, the first offence registered at CR No.
400 of 2021 arose out of the resistance of a mob of 400 to 500 persons
to the demolition drive, which was being carried out by the MMRDA at
Mouje Kasheli. Evidently, the alleged involvement of the Petitioner in
the said resistance to the demolition drive, even if taken at par, would
not justify the drastic action of externment.
14. In CR No. 1036 of 2023, prima facie, the Petitioner seems to have
been implicated as a member of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of
the common object of which first informant and witnesses therein were
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
assaulted. No specific overt act appears to have been attributed to the
Petitioner.
15. That leaves CR No. 907 of 2023 as the only offence in which
specific allegations have been made against the Petitioner. Such offences
without the concomitant factor of the witnesses not coming forward to
give evidence in public would not justify the extraordinary action of
externment.
16. The aforesaid being the nature of the offences registered against
the Petitioner, this Court considered it appropriate to peruse the
statements of the witnesses, which were recorded in-camera. As noted
above, the State expressed its inability to place on record the copies of
the statements of the witnesses on the ground that those statements
were not traceable. In the absence thereof, this Court finds it rather
difficult to accede to the submission of the learned APP that the
witnesses were not coming forward to give evidence against the
Petitioner in public on account of the reign of terror created by the
Petitioner.
17. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that, the
externment order cannot be sustained.
18. Hence the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) Petition stands allowed.
-WP-1221-2025.DOC
(ii) The impugned order dated 13th January
2025, as well as the externment order dated 16 th
November 2024, passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone II, Bhiwandi, stand
quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid
terms.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
