Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Madhukar Ade vs Tha State Of Maharashtra Through Police ... on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9661
32 wp 695.25.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 695/2025
Gajanan S/o Madhukar Ade,
Aged 35 yrs., Occ. Labourer,
R/o. Rohada, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Khandala,
Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
3. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. K.S. Narwarde, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. S. V. Kolhe, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 22.09.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
32 wp 695.25.odt
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mrs. S.V. Kolhe,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. With consent of learned counsel for
the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to
quash and set aside the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by
respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Amravati as well
as order dated 13.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Pusad.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the activities of the
petitioner are restricted only to Khandala Police Station,
however, the petitioner was externed from four districts i.e.
Yavatmal, Hingoli, Washim and Nanded for one year which is
excessive in nature and there are no reasons assigned to show
that it is necessary to extern from four districts. Further, there is
no compliance of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police
32 wp 695.25.odt
Act, 1951 ("Act of 1951") as there is no reference of in-camera
statement in the impugned orders.
5. He further submits that though the inquiry under
Section 59(1) of the Act of 1951 was conducted, wherein there
is reference of two in-camera statements, however respondent
No.2 has not referred anything about the in-camera statements
in the order under challenge. He further submits that even on
merits, stale offences are taken into consideration as the last
offence was said to have been committed on 26.08.2024.
Whereas the order was passed by respondent No.2 on
13.06.2025 and therefore, he submits that there is no live-link.
6. On the other hand, learned APP submits that the
petitioner is a habitual offender. He has committed as many as
seven crimes. Not only that, the chapter proceedings have also
been initiated. She further submits that the last crime was
committed by the petitioner on 26.08.2024, under the
Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 ("Gambling Act,
1887") She further submits that even if that crime is ignored,
the petitioner has still committed Crime No. 228/2024 for the
32 wp 695.25.odt
offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code ("IPC") on 28.06.2024 which could be considered
as the last crime. As the proposal is moved on 17.03.2025, and
therefore, it cannot be said that the live-link is snapped. She
further relied on the other offence which is committed by the
petitioner bearing Crime No. 138/2019 for the offence
punishable under Sections 353, 34 of the IPC read with
Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act.
7. She further submits that, the petitioner is a sand
smuggler and he is excavating the sand from the river bank
illegally. He has restrained public servants while discharging
their duties and therefore, she submits that the order has been
passed by giving sufficient reasons. The Divisional
Commissioner i.e. respondent No.3 has considered everything
and thereafter rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.
8. Upon perusal of both, the impugned orders as well as
the record placed before this Court, it appears that the
petitioner was externed from four districts for one year. It also
32 wp 695.25.odt
appears from the reasoning part of the order dated 13.06.2025
passed by respondent No.2, that there are absolutely no reasons
for externing the petitioner from four districts. Further, it
appears from the record that the activities of the petitioner are
restricted only to the extent of Khandala Police Station,
whereas he was externed from four districts which is in my
opinion, is excessive.
9. As was argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in order to satisfy the provisions of Section
56(1)(b) of the Act of 1951, there has to be satisfaction of the
respondent No.2 that the witnesses are not coming forward to
give evidence, however, even this part is missing from the order.
As could be seen from the inquiry under Section 59 of the Act
of 1951 that though two confidential statements of witnesses
are recorded and the report is forwarded to the respondent
No.2 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, there is still no
reference to these two in-camera statements and therefore, it
could be said that there is no subjective satisfaction, so also,
there is no satisfaction of the ingredient contained in Section
32 wp 695.25.odt
56(1)(b) of the Act of 1951 and therefore, the very base to
extern the petitioner under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act of 1951
is missing and hence, the order is bad-in-law.
10. It further appears from the record that the last crime
committed by the petitioner is under Section 12(a) of the
Gambling Act, 1887 on 26.08.2024. However, as held by this
Court the provisions of the Gambling Act, 1887 cannot form
the basis to extern the petitioner and therefore, this crime will
have to be ignored. As was submitted by the learned APP that
even if the crime under the provision of the Gambling Act, 1887
is ignored, the petitioner has committed last crime on
28.06.2024 which is for the offence punishable under Section
324, 504, 506 of the IPC and the proposal was submitted on
17.03.2025 and therefore, she submits that there is a live-link.
This Court time and again has taken a view that such a delay
frustrates the very object of externment initiated against the
petitioner. It is further to be noted that even if this crime is
considered which is registered on 28.06.2024, the order is
passed on 13.06.2025 which is almost after one year and
32 wp 695.25.odt
therefore, it can be said that, there is no live-link between this
crime and the order of externment. It could be seen further
from the record that stale offences like the offence of 2019,
2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024 are taken into consideration. In
my opinion, all these offences can not form the basis for
externment of the petitioner for the reason that, these were
registered long back and those offences cannot form live-link
and therefore, the live-link is snapped.
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the
order passed by the respondent No.2 is bad-in-law and also,
excessive.
12. Further, respondent No.3 Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati has considered all the crimes, without considering
whether there is satisfaction of Section 56(1)(b) of the Act of
1951 so as to pass externment order. Therefore, both the
authorities have failed to apply their mind to the facts and
circumstances of the case. The externment proceedings are the
proceedings wherein the right of the petitioner guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India is curtailed
32 wp 695.25.odt
and therefore, the same is to be curtailed by following the
procedure established by law. The authorities must construe
these provisions in stricter sense. It appears from the record
that, the authorities have acted in casual manner. Not only
that, the respondent No.3 Divisional Commissioner has also not
taken into consideration anything and has passed a cryptic
order. Therefore, considering the above facts and
circumstances, in my opinion, both these orders cannot sustain
in law and accordingly order dated 11.08.2025 passed by
respondent No.3 - Divisional Commissioner, Amravati as well
as order dated 13.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Pusad are quashed and set aside.
13. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/09/2025 16:42:48
