Bombay High Court
Dinesh S/O Vitthalrao Warhade And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 10 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8937
3 wp 650.25.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 650/2025
1. Dinesh s/o. Vitthalrao Warhade,
Aged about 39 yrs., Occ. Private
work,
2. Anil S/o Vitthalrao Warhade,
aged about 41 yrs., Occ. Private Work,
3. Sunil S/o. Vitthalrao Warhade,
aged about 43 yrs, Occ. Private work,
4. Shbham s/o Santoshrao Warhade,
aged about 27 yrs., Occ. Private work,
All R/o. Kachnur, Tah. Arvi,
Dist. Wardha.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Wardha, Dist. Wardha.
...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.K. Bhangde, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Hulke, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 wp 650.25.odt
2
CORAM : M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 10.09.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. S.S. Hulke,
learned A.P.P. waives service for respondents. With consent of
learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 21.06.2025
passed by respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police, Wardha
and confirmation order dated 11.07.2025 passed by respondent
No.1 - Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur whereby the
respondent No.2 has externed the petitioners under Section 55
of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 ("the Act of 1951"). The
petitioners are being termed as a gang and therefore, an action
is taken against them under Section 55 of the Act of 1951. The
learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are
externed only on basis of offences committed by them under
3 wp 650.25.odt
the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. He
further submits that as per the settled position of law, the
offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot form
basis to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1951 and thereby on
this short ground, he prayed to allow the petition. So as to
substantiate the aforesaid contention, learned counsel has
relied on the following judgments of this Court:-
(i) Sagarsingh Kesharsingh Bawari Vs. Ministry of
Home Department and others, 2013 ALL MR (Cri)
4407,
(ii) Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, 2023 ALL MR (Cri) 1284,
(iii) Vijay @ Tyson s/o. Namdeorao Dongre Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others, 2017 ALL MR (Cri)
5254,
(iv) Hitesh Santosh Shinde and others Vs. The
Divisional Commissioner and others, 2024 ALL MR
(Cri) 4174,
(v) Sagar Vinod Katole and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another (Criminal Writ Petition
No.320/2025, decided on 01.07.2025),
3 wp 650.25.odt
(vi) Shivraj s/o Bhagwan Patil Vs. The Divisional
Commissioner and others (Criminal Writ Petition
No.619/2018 with another matter, decided on
10.07.2018).
4. Per contra, learned APP vehemently submits that
Wardha District was declared as a Dry District in the year 1975.
The activities of the petitioners as a gang in a Dry District
would tantamount to committing an offence against the Society
which offence is being committed in an organized manner.
Therefore, the activities of the petitioners are squarely covered
under the provisions of Section 55 of the Act of 1951 and
thereby, he supported the order of externment and the
confirmation order passed by respondent No.1.
5. I have heard both the sides at length and also gone
through the case laws which are cited by the learned counsel
for petitioners. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the
case laws, it can be gathered that the petitioners are facing
criminal trial for the offences registered under the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act. It seems from the record that so far as Dinesh
3 wp 650.25.odt
Vitthalrao Warhade is concerned, there are as many as 11 cases
registered again him under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
and he is termed as a gang leader. So far as Anil Vitthalrao
Warhade is concerned, he is termed as a member of gang and 6
crimes are registered against him under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Further, against gang members
Sunil Vitthal Warhade and Shubham Santosh Warhade, 2
crimes each are registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The judgments of this Court
relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners,
unequivocally clarifies the position so far as externment either
under Section 55 or 56 of the Act of 1951, is concerned that the
offences under provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
cannot form basis to invoke the provisions of Section 55 or 56
of the Act of 1951. It would be useful to refer to the judgment
in the case of Sagarsingh Kesharsingh Bawari Vs. Ministry of
Home Department (supra), wherein it is held as under:-
"2......all other prosecutions are under the provisions of the
Bombay Prohibition Act and Maharashtra Prevention of
Gambling Act, 1887. The prosecution under Section 326
3 wp 650.25.odt
and 324 read with Section 34 is of 2010. The
consideration of the prosecutions under the Bombay
Prohibhing Act and Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling
Act, 1887 by the Authority vitiates the impugned order,
inasmuch as it is the settled law that for the purposes of
passing the externment order, these prosecutions cannot be
taken into consideration."
The aforesaid position is reiterated in the case of Paramjitsingh
@ Jentil Sardar Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein this
Court in paragraph 13 has observed as under:-
"13. It would be necessary to go through the relevant
record to examine the correctness of the orders impugned
in this petition. It is undisputed that the crimes at Sr. Nos.
4, 5, 6 and 7 were registered under the Section 65(e) of
the Prohibition Act. The crime at Sr. No.1 was registered
under Section 142 of the Act of 1951. It is settled legal
position that such crimes cannot be taken into
consideration to justify the externment order. In this
connection, useful reference can be made to the decision
in the case of Vijay @ Tyson S/o. Namdeorao Dongre .v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Others3. In this case, it is
held that the crime registered under Section 65(e) of the
Prohibition Act for selling, buying and possessing
intoxicant could not be said to be prejudicial to the public
peace, tranquility and as such, cannot be made the
foundation for externment. It is to be noted that in view
of Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951, the
3 wp 650.25.odt
offences registered under the provisions of the Prohibition
Act and the Act of 1951 could not be said to be an acts as
contemplated or understood by the Clause (a) and (b) of
Section 56 (1) of the Act of 1951. Therefore, while
deciding the fate of the impugned order, out of the seven
crimes these five crimes ought to have been excluded
while forming the subjective satisfaction by the respondent
No.2. Perusal of the externment order would show that
those crimes were registered in the year 2021. The last
crime was registered on 08.08.2021. Perusal of the
externment order would show that for the purpose of
recording subjective satisfaction for the purpose of passing
externment order these five crimes were relied upon as an
objective material. It is seen that on the basis of these five
crimes the live link between those crimes and the
externment proceeding was sought to be established. In
my view, the approach of the respondent No.2 was totally
against the spirit of Section 56 of the Act of 1951. In my
view, this is important aspect to conclude that the
subjective satisfaction was dented."
Therefore, considering the above exposition of law, it is crystal
clear that the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
cannot be invoked for externing petitioners, and this settled
position of law was conveniently ignored by both the
authorities i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is true that all the
offences against the petitioners are registered in Wardha
3 wp 650.25.odt
District which is declared as a Dry District since the year 1975.
However, in view of the settled position, the provisions of the
Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot be invoked to extern
petitioners, whether it is declared as a Dry District or not.
Further, it is borne out of record that for committing offences in
a Dry District, already First Information Reports are registered
against these petitioners and the same are pending for
adjudication which would be taken care by the concerned
Court.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of
the opinion that both the authorities i.e. respondent No.1 and 2
have miserably failed to take into consideration the above
aspect of the matter and therefore, committed gross error by
externing petitioners from Wardha District for 2 years. In this
view of the matter, following order is passed:-
(I) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
(II) The Impugned order dated 21.06.2025 passed by
respondent No.2 in Criminal Case No. 13/2025 and
3 wp 650.25.odt
order dated 11.07.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in
Appeal No. 43/2025 are hereby quashed and set aside.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/09/2025 15:20:28
