[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vishal @Saki Sanjay Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:16306
Digitally signed
SANTOSH by SANTOSH
SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI 11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
KULKARNI Date: 2026.04.06
21:16:56 +0530
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1268 OF 2026
Vishal @ Saki Sanjay Gaikwad ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr ...Respondents
Mr. Vishwajeet Nimbalkar, i/b Shailesh Kharat, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Malshe, APP for the State.
Mr. D. A. Jagdale, PSI, Wakad Police Station, present.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 2nd APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails the legality, propriety, and correctness of an order dated
13th February, 2026, passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Pune, in Appeal No.236/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by
the petitioner against an order of externment dated 27 th October,
2025, thereby externing the petitioner from the limits of Pimpri-
Chinchwad and Pune City Commissioneartes and Pune Rural
District for a term of two years under the provisions of Section
56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 ("the Police Act,
11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
1951") came to be dismissed by affirming the said order of
externment passed by the Competent Authority.
3. A notice was served on the petitioner on 10th October, 2025
calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why an action of
externment should not be not initiated against the petitioner.
The petitioner gave a reply thereto. By an order dated 27 th
October, 2025, the Competent Authority was persuaded to
extern the petitioner from the limits of Pimpri-Chinchwad and
Pune Police Commissionerates, and Pune Rural District opining
that crimes were registered against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code") and the witnesses were not
coming forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner
fearing for the safety of their person or property.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Divisional Commissioner under Section 60 of the Police Act,
1951. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority dismissed
the appeal, concurring with the view of the Competent
Authority. The petitioner has, thus, invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
5. I have heard Mr. Vishwajeet Nimbalkar, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. P. Malshe, the learned APP
for the State.
6. The following crimes registered against the petitioner were
taken into account by the Competent Authority.
Sr. No. Police C. R. No. Sections Current status
Station
118(2) and 352 of BNS, Under
2023 Investigation
2 Wakad 480/2025 3 The Maharashtra Under
Prevention of Defacement Investigation
of Property Act, 1995
3 Wakad 551/2019 447, 504, 506(2) 143, 147, Pending
149 of IPC and Section 7
of Cri.Law.A.Act
4 Wakad 12/2018 188 of IPC and 37(1)(3) Pending
r/w 135 of Maharashtra
Police Act.
5 Chatursh 279/2014 420, 38, 114, 107, 463, Pending
rungi 465, 466, 468, 474, 499
r/w 34 of the IPC
In addition, reference was made to prohibitive action taken
against the petitioner.
7. In the context of the aforesaid material, Mr. Nimbalkar, the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, took a slew of exceptions to
the order of externment. Firstly, the Competent Authority has
taken into account crimes which are not germane to the
measure of externment. Secondly, the Competent Authority has
considered the stale case registered against the petitioner in the
11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
year 2014. Thirdly, in regard to the incident leading to the
registration of CR No.26/2025 (Sr. No.1), the petitioner has
lodged a cross FIR. Fourthly, the externment order suffers from
the vice of arbitrary exercise of the power and reflects
excessiveness on the both counts; the area of externment and
the duration of externment. The said incident occurred on
account of a private dispute between the petitioner and the first
informant in CR No.26/2025. Thus, the action of externment
was wholly unjustified.
8. Mr. Malshe, the learned APP, in his usual fairness,
submitted that the incident leading to the registration of CR
No.26/2025 arose out of a dispute over the possession of the
property between the neighbours. The competent authority has
indeed taken into account crimes registered against the
petitioner in the years 2014 and 2018.
9. Evidently, the Petitioner was ordered to be externed by
invoking the provisions contained in Section 56(1)(b) of the Act,
1951. The measure of externment, by its very nature, is extra-
ordinary. It has the effect of forced displacement from the home
and surroundings. Often, it affects the livelihood of the person
ordered to be externed and the dependents on him. The order of
externment, therefore, must be strictly within the bounds of the
11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
statutory provisions. Under clause (b) of Section 56(1), there
must be an objective material on the strength of which the
externing authority must record subjective satisfaction that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the externee is
engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of offences
involving force or violence. Mere registration of a number of
offences, by itself, does not sustain an externment under
Section 56(1)(b) of the Act. The offences must either involve
elements of force or violence or fall under Chapters XII, XVI and
XVII of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the externing
authority must record satisfaction that the witnesses are not
willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the
externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the
safety of their person or property.
10. In effect, to sustain an action of externment under sub-
clause (b), the offences the externee has engaged in must be
under one of the Chapters enumerated therein, and that the
acts or conduct of the externee are such that the witnesses are
terrified and dissuaded from giving evidence against the
externee in public, fearing safety of their person or property.
11. If the sustainability of the order of externment is tested on
the anvil of the aforesaid principles, it becomes abundantly
11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
clear that the Competent Authority erred in taking into account
CR No.480/2025 (Sr. No.2) for the offence punishable under
Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of
Property Act, 1995 and CR No.12/2018 (Sr. No.4) for the offence
punishable under Section 188 of the Penal Code and Section
37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Police Act, 1951. Both
these crimes do not form part of Chapter XVI and XVII of the
Penal Code, 1860 and, thus, could not have been lawfully taken
into account. The consideration of CR No.279/2014 (Sr. No.5)
also indicates that the Competent Authority was influenced by a
crime which was registered almost 11 years prior to the
initiation of the externment proceedings. It is manifestly evident
that the Competent Authority took into account irrelevant
material, and that betrays non-application of mind.
12. This Court finds substance in the submission of Mr.
Nimbalkar that the incident leading to registration of CR
No.26/2025 (Sr. No.1) for the offences punishable under
Sections 118(2) and 352 of the BNS, 2023 arose out of a private
dispute between the petitioner and the first informant therein,
over the proprietary and possessory title to the property. In
respect of the very same incident, the petitioner has lodged CR
No.30/2025. There are, thus, two versions in regard to the one
11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
and the same incident. In the totality of the circumstances, the
initiation of the action of externment on the basis of the
registration of the said crime appears to be wholly unwarranted.
13. As noted above, mere registration of the crime for the
offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Penal
Code is of no significance. The Competent Authority must have
further satisfied itself that on account of a reign of terror
created by the externee, the witnesses were not willing to come
forward to give evidence in public fearing for their safety of
person and property, such satisfaction, though subjective, as to
be recorded on the basis of objective material. In the case at
hand, it does not appear that the Competent Authority has
recorded the statement of the confidential witness on the basis
of which such an inference could be legitimately drawn. In the
absence of such objective material, mere registration of offences
falling under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Penal Code, 1860, by
itself, was not sufficient to justify the measure of externment of
clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Police Act, 1951.
14. The non-consideration of the aspect of the term of
externment also impairs the order of externment. In the case of
Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra and
11CRIWP1268-2026.DOC
Ors.1, the Supreme Court, after adverting to the provisions of
Section 58 of the Act, 1951, underscored the necessity of
arriving at the subjective satisfaction regarding the term of
externment also on the basis of objective material. It was ruled
that, where the externee is externed for a maximum permissible
period of two years, without recording the subjective satisfaction
regarding the necessity of the externment for a full term, it
would amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the
fundamental rights guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1)
of the Constitution of India.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the order of externment and
consequently the impugned order cannot be sustained.
16. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The writ petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27th October, 2025 as well as
the order dated 13th February, 2026 passed by the
Competent Authority externing the petitioner stand
quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
1 (2023) 14 SCC 707.
