Bombay High Court
Sonal S/O Shankar Gogula vs Superitendent Of Police And Anr. on 11 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9012
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2025
...
Sonal S/o Shankar Gogula,
Aged 27 years,
R/o Behind Vidya Talkies, Ghugus,
District : Chandrapur.
... PETITIONER
--VERSUS--
1] Superintendent of Police,
Chandrapur.
2] Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur.
... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2025
Shri Rajesh @ Rajanna S/o Narsingh Kankatwar,
Aged 32 years,
R/o Behind Vidya Talkies, Ghugus,
District : Chandrapur.
... PETITIONER
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
2
--VERSUS--
1] Superintendent of Police,
Chandrapur.
2] Divisional Commissioner,
Nagpur.
... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. F.H. Haidari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. S.V.Kolhe, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2025.
COMMON JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. S.V. Kolhe, learned
A.P.P. waives service for respondents. With consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal.
3. Both petitions are filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 02/10/2024
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
3
passed by respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur,
and order dated 13/12/2024 passed by respondent No.2- Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur, wherein, the petitioners were externed from
Chandrapur District for a period of two years.
4. It appears from the record that notice was issued under
Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on 18/09/2024,
asking the petitioner-Sonal that why she should not be externed
from Chandrapur District for a period of two years. It is further
stated in the notice that she is the gang member and has committed
following offences:-
Sr. Police Crime No. Section Charge No. Court Case Status
No. Station and Date No.
01 Chandrapur 241/2015 302, 450, 11/2016 56/2016 Pending
27.10.2015 34 of 28.01.2016 26.01.2016 in Court
IPC
02 Ghugus 598/2016 294, 503, 53/2017 476/2017 Pending
13.10.2016 34 of 24.01.2017 27.01.2017 in Court
IPC
03 Ghugus 605/2017 65(A) of 245/2017 4767/2017 Pending
04.10.2017 Maharas 25.11.2017 29.11.2017 in Court
htra
Prohibiti
on Act
alongwit
h Section
188 of
IPC
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
4
04 Ghugus 355/2018 65(e), 83 206/2018 4609/2018 Pending
18.07.2018 of 05.10.2018 05.12.2018 in Court
Maharas
htra
Prohibiti
on Act
alongwit
h Section
188 of
IPC
05 Ghugus 26/2019 143, 147, 27/2019 2670/2019 Pending
25.01.2019 323 of 22.08.2019 29.08.2019 in Court
IPC
It is further stated in the notice that, two incamera
statements were recorded, wherein, it is stated that witnesses are not
coming forward to depose against the petitioner-Sonal, due to fear
and terror created by the petitioner.
5. Similarly, notice was under Section 59 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951, to the petitioner-Rajesh on 18/09/2024, on the
ground that he has committed 5 crimes and two in-camera
statements were recorded against him which speaks that the
activities of the petitioner-Rajesh is against the society and due to
fear and terror created by the petitioner, no one is coming forward
to depose against him. The following are the crimes committed by
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
5
the petitioner-Rajesh:-
Sr. Police Crime No. Section Charge Court Case Status
No. Station and Date No. No.
01 Ghugus 221/2020 65(e), 83 128/2020 2079/2020 Pending
08.09.2022 of 23.11.2020 21.12.2020 in Court
Maharashtr
a
Prohibition
Act
02 Ghugus 10/2022 341, 294, 49/2022 1880/2022 Pending
27.01.2022 323, 506, 20.06.2022 29.06.2022 in Court
34 of IPC
03 Ghugus 64/2022 302, 120, 34/2022 308/2022 Pending
20.02.2022 143, 147, 17.05.2022 19.05.2022 in Court
148, 107 of
IPC
alongwith
Section
135 of
Maharashtr
a Police
Act and
Section 4,
25 of Arms
Act
04 Gadchand 160/2016 65(e), 83 192/2016 209/2016 Pending
ur 22.03.2016 of 20.07.2016 12.08.2016 in Court
Maharashtr
a
Prohibition
Act
alongwith
Section
201 of IPC
05 Shirpur 230/2016 379, 34 of 02/2017 09/2017 Acquitta
District 02.11.2016 IPC 24.01.2017 25.01.2017 l
Yavatmal
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
6
6. Both petitioners have filed their respective replies denying
the contentions of the notice. They have relied on several
Authorities in their reply pointing out to the concerned officer that
the grounds which are raised for externing them cannot be
sustainable, as their activities does not fall under Section 55 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and the activities are not in the nature
of organized crime, and therefore, they cannot be said to be
members of the gang.
7. After forwarding the report to the Superintendent of
Police, Chandrapur, the Superintendent of Police passed the
impugned order on 02/10/2024 by externing the petitioners for a
period of two years from Chandrapur District. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that petitioner-Sonal committed last
offence in the year 2019, whereas, petitioner-Rajesh committed last
offence in the year 2022, and therefore, those cases cannot be
considered for externing them. He further submits that in-camera
statements are recorded recently in order to fill the lacunaes. He
further submits that there is no proximity between the last crime
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
7
committed and the order of externment. He further submits that the
activities do not fall under the category of organized crime, and
therefore, the petitioners cannot be termed as members of the gang.
He further submits that, in fact, after 2019 and 2022, the petitioner-
Sonal and the petitioner-Rajesh, respectively, has not committed any
offence, and therefore, they cannot be termed as a gang members.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the
activities of the petitioners have created threat in the vicinity of
District Chandrapur and they are acting in an organized manner.
The respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 have considered the
factual aspects before passing the order. He further submits that the
cases which are registered, form the basis of the externment order,
and cannot be said to be stale cases. There is proximity, as the
proposal was filed for the first time on 02/09/2024, and the
impugned order was passed on 02/10/2024. He further submits that
in-camera statements would also disclose that the activities of
petitioners are harmful to the society and due to threat and fear, no
one is coming forward to depose against them. He further submits
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
8
that preventive action such as Chapter Case was initiated against the
petitioners in the year 2023. He further submits that considering the
materials on record, the respondent No.1 is subjectively satisfied and
on the basis of objective material, placed before him, passed a
detailed order by giving reasons. In Appeal filed under Section 60 of
the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the petitioners failed, and
therefore, both the Authorities have considered the case in
accordance with law. Accordingly, she prayed to reject both the
petitions.
9. Having heard both the sides at length and considering their
rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears to
me that the order under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act,
was passed by the respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police against
as many as four persons. One Shiva @ Shivaji Vasanta Gonewar,
was shown as a gang leader. Said Shiva has committed near about
eight crimes. In some of the crimes, petitioners are involved. It
seems from the record that petitioner-Sonal is having four offences
registered against her, which are committed in between 2016 to
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
9
2019. So far as, petitioner-Rajesh is concerned, he is having three
offences registered against him, which are committed in between
2020 to 2022. Both of them have committed their last crime in the
year 2019 and 2022, respectively. So far as Crime against Sonal is
concerned, it was registered as Crime No.26/2019 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, on 25/01/2019. Similarly, against Rajesh, Crime No.
64/2022 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 120, 143, 147, 148 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and
Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 on 20/02/2022. Both these
cases are pending with the Court. As was pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the offence committed in the year 2019
and 2022 cannot be taken into consideration for externing the
petitioners as those cases are not having proximity with the order of
the externment. It would be useful to refer to the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Pratik Vs Divisional Commissioner and
Others, 2023 SCC Online Bom 87, wherein, it is specifically held that
stale cases having no proximity with the order of the externment
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
10
cannot form the basis to pass the order of externment. Therefore,
considering the fact that the respondent No.1 has relied on the stale
cases, which are registered in the year 2019 and 2022, respectively,
cannot form the basis to extern the petitioners.
10. It is needless to mention that the appeals filed by the
petitioner-Sonal and petitioner-Rajesh were rejected by the Appellate
Authority. However, the Appellate Forum i.e., the Divisional
Commissioner also failed to take into consideration the above
aspects. Merely referring to the past offences, without proper
application of mind and without recording subjective satisfaction,
both the Authorities have passed the impugned orders.
11. So far as incamera statements are concerned, it seems
from the record that those are recorded in order to fill the gap
between the last committed crime and the impugned order. It is
further to be noted that in-camera statements are so vague that it
does not, in any way, said to be sufficient to invoke the provisions of
Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act. In fact, after 2019 and
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 67-68-Cr.WPs-425-426-2025
11
2022, there are no offences registered against the present
petitioners, however, the statements shows that the petitioners
alongwith others are doing illegal activities, and therefore, those
statements are not sufficient and cannot be believed for the purpose
of ordering externment. Considering the above facts and
circumstances, the impugned order does not sustain in law. Hence,
the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 02/10/2024 passed by
respondent No.1-Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur, and
impugned order dated 13/12/2024 passed by respondent No.2-
Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
