[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prashik Bhaskar Chahande vs Divisional Commissioner Revenue on 20 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3058
2Cri WP95.26.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.95/2026
Prashik S/o Bhaskar Chahande,
Aged 23 yrs., Occ. Student,
R/o. Sahnti Nagar, Sawangi Meghe,
Wardha, Dist. Wardha.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Commissioner, (Revenue),
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Wardha, Dist. Wardha.
3. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Wardha, Dist. Wardha.
4. State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., Ram Nagar,
Wardha, Dist. Wardha.
...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. Rai, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A. Mate, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 20.02.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2Cri WP95.26.odt
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. A. Mate, learned
APP waives service for respondent No. 1 to 4. With consent of
learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing.
3. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking quashing
of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in appeal No.109/2025
by the respondent No.1-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur and also to quash order dated 18.08.2025
passed by respondent No.2 - Superintendent of Police, Wardha.
4. The petitioner was externed by respondent No.2
under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act ("Police Act")
on the basis of following offences :-
क्र. पोलिस अप. क्र. कलम संदेश यश प्रशिक शंतनु केस न./दि. सद्यस्थिति
स्टेशन शेंडे श्रीवास्तव चहानदे
रामटेके
१. रामनगर ७०२/२०१९ ३२६, ३२३, १५५/2020 न्यायापरविष्ट
२४.०२.२०२०
भादवी
२. वर्धा शहर ०२३/२०२३ २९४, ५०६, २२४/२०२३ न्यायापरविष्ट
३४ भादवी
२४.०४.२०२३
सह कलम
४, २५ भा.
ह. का.
2Cri WP95.26.odt
३. वर्धा शहर ४, २५ भा. ✓ ५७१/२०२५ न्यायापरविष्ट
ह. का. सह
२९.०५.२०२५
कलम १२५,
१३२,
१८९(२),
१८९(४),
१९०,
१९१(२),
३५१(२),
३५२(२) भा.
न्या. संहिता
The following are the Offences against gang member Prashik
Bhaskar Chande in Police Station Ramnagar, Wardha city,
Sawangi, Dist. Wardha:-
क्र. पोलिस अप. क्र. कलम फौ. मा. क्र. सद्यस्थिति
स्टेशन
१. रामनगर ८४९/२०२२ २९४, ५०६, ५०४ ४९२२/२०२२ न्यायापरविष्ट
भादवी
१४.११.२०२२
2. वर्धा शहर २१३१/२०२४ कलम ४, २५ , भा. ह. ५७१/२०२५ न्यायापरविष्ट
का. सह कलम १२५,
२९.०५ .२०२५
१३२, १८९(२), १८९
(४), १९०, १९१(२),
३५१(२), ३५२ भा.
न्या. संहिता
3. सावंगी १०२/२०२३ कलम ४५२, ३२४, २९८/२०२३ न्यायापरविष्ट
५०६, ५०४, ३४
१२.०६/२०२३
भादवी
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that so far as crime which was committed in the year
2024, i.e. Crime No. 2131/2024 is the only crime which has
been committed along with other members of the gang. He
2Cri WP95.26.odt
submits that therefore, it is not sufficient to conclude that
activities of the petitioner comes under Section 55 of the Police
Act. He submits that in order to form a gang, there should be
an organized group of criminals or disorderly young people
who work together as anti-social elements or for criminal
purposes. He further submits that this is the last crime which
was committed by the petitioner and thereafter, no offence has
been committed. He further submits that the activity of the
petitioner is individual in nature, therefore this cannot be
termed as activity of the 'gang'. He raised another ground that
the crime chart which shows the activities of the petitioner,
that by itself is not sufficient to extern the petitioner, as there is
no proximity between the last committed crime and the
impugned orders, therefore according to him, the live-link is
snapped. He further submits that the respondent No.2 has
passed the order externing the petitioner for maximum period
of two years, which is without application of mind and without
subjective satisfaction. According to him, though in appeal the
said period was reduced to one year, however the fact remains
2Cri WP95.26.odt
that there is no reasoning recorded. He submits that so far as
the Crime No. 2131/2024 is concerned, in that crime total five
accused persons are involved, however, against Ankush
Tirpude, no order of externment was passed by the respondent
No.2, therefore according to him, this is nothing but, a pick and
choose policy of the respondent No.2, and therefore the entire
order stands vitiated. He further submits that so far as in
camera statement recorded by the sponsoring authority is
concerned, in the actual incident, the witnesses have not taken
the name of the present petitioner, therefore the externing
authority has not subjectively satisfied himself and without
application of mind, the order of externment was passed.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently
opposes the petition and submits that all the mandatory
provisions have been followed in order to extern the petitioner.
He submits that notice under Section 59 of the Police Act was
issued and all the material allegations against the petitioner
were informed to him. He further submits that the principle of
natural justice was also followed. He submits that considering
2Cri WP95.26.odt
the material against the petitioner, specifically the crime which
was committed by all the persons against whom the order of
externment is passed, has been committed as a gang. He
submits that the activities of the petitioner could be gathered
from the crime chart of the petitioner which shows that total
three crimes are committed by the petitioner i.e. Crime No.
849/2022, Crime No. 2131/2024 and Crime No. 102/2023,
therefore it cannot be said that the order of externment cannot
be passed against the petitioner. He further submits that Crime
No. 2131/2024 was committed by all the persons against
whom the order of externment was passed. He further submits
that the in camera statement goes to show that the petitioner
along with other persons are committing crimes and that the
witnesses are not willing to come forward due to their criminal
activities and threat perception in the society. He further
invited my attention to the in camera statement, wherein name
of the petitioner is mentioned along with other accused
persons. He further submits that merely non-mentioning of his
name in the actual incident, that by itself is not sufficient to
2Cri WP95.26.odt
interfere with the impugned order. He submits that the record
itself speaks about the activities of the petitioner. He submits
that so far as the maximum period of the externment is
concerned, it was already curtailed by the Divisional
Commissioner, therefore the said contention of the petitioner
cannot be taken into consideration. Lastly, he submitted that it
was after considering the material objectively and thereafter
satisfying himself subjectively, the impugned orders are passed
authorities.
7. I have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, it
appears from the record that one crime i.e. Crime No.
2131/2024 was registered against the petitioner, as well as
against all the persons those who have been externed by the
present impugned order passed by respondent No.2. Said crime
was registered under Sections 125, 132, 189(2), 189(4) 190,
191(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS read with Sections 4, 25 of the
Arms Act. Admittedly, this crime was committed in the year
2024. However, the order of externment was passed on
18.08.2025. Admittedly, the order was passed after 8 months
2Cri WP95.26.odt
from the last committed crime by the petitioner. Therefore, the
very object of externment is frustrated as there is no live-link
between the last committed crime and the order of the
externment. Further more, so far as crime committed by the
petitioner as a collective crime is concerned, wherein five
persons are involved, however against one person namely
Ankush Tirpurde no order of externment was passed against
him, and there is no reason recorded in the entire impugned
order, as to why he was singled out. It could be said that the
respondent No.2 has adopted the policy of pick and choose. It
is further to be noted that Crime No. 2131/2024 was shown to
be committed by all persons, against whom the impugned order
was passed. However, in order to apply Section 55 of the
Police Act their activities should fall under Section 55 of the
Police Act. For that purpose, the learned counsel has relied on
the judgment of Altaf Rajekhan Pathan and others Vs
Divisional Commissioner, Pune and others, 2018 DGLS(Bom.)
633, wherein this Court had an occasion to consider the word
"gang" in paragraph No.21 which is reproduced as under:-
2Cri WP95.26.odt
21. In the context of the aforesaid issue, Section 55
would have to be revisited, the said provision has
already been reproduced in the earlier part of this
judgment. The said provision as can be seen invoked
against the movement or encampment of any gang or
body of persons in the area of a Commissioner in the
commissionerate area, in a district by the District
Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the
Superintendent empowered by the State Government
in that behalf. Therefore the sine qua non for section
55 to apply is the movement or encampment of any
gang or body of persons. Hence the section
contemplates that there has to be a collective action
or concerted action on the part of the gang members.
Only when there is a collective or concerted action
that the action of dispersal or removal of each of the
gang members can be taken. The word "gang" has not
been defined in the Police Act. It would therefore be
useful to refer to the dictionary meaning of the said
word "gang"
Black's Law Dictionary "Gang" means:
"A group of persons who go about together or act in
concert, esp, for antisocial or criminal purposes".
Oxford Dictionary "Gang" means:
"an organized group of criminals or disorderly young
people".
2Cri WP95.26.odt
Hence going by the dictionary meaning of the word
"gang" the same also indicates that a gang has to be a
collection of persons or a body of persons who are
acting in concert towards a common unlawful object
and, just because an offence is registered against a
gang leader and one member of a gang would not
mean that they constitute a gang so as to come within
the sweep of section 55 of the Police Act. Even the
meaning of the word "gang" in the Law Lexicon on
which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
sought to place reliance cannot be said to be in
deviation to the meaning in the other dictionaries as
above. In fact the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor sought to rely upon a line from the
meaning in the Law Lexicon which in our view would
be reading the said line out of context.
It is required to be noted that in all the above
Petitions, the offence under the Gambling Act is
registered against the gang leader "A" with the alleged
member of the gang being "B", against "A" with "C",
"A" with "D", "A" with "E", but not against A, B, C, D,
or E collectively or even against a substantial number
of gang members collectively. It is also required to be
noted that in some cases the offence registered
against "A" and "B" is much anterior in point of time
to the offences registered against "A" and "E" and
therefore there is no proximity between the offences
2Cri WP95.26.odt
and therefore the test of there being a collective
participation is not satisfied as they are all
individualistic cases registered against the alleged
gang leader and a member."
8. From the above observation of this Court, it is crystal
clear that the word "gang" has not been defined in the Police
Act. However, this Court has taken into consideration the
dictionary meaning of the "gang" as a group of persons who go
about together or act in concert especially for anti-social or
criminal purposes. Further, as per Oxford dictionary "gang"
means an organized group of criminals or disorderly young
people. So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly it
appears from the record that the gang leader namely Sandesh
@ Badal Mahendra Shende against whom near about 18
serious crimes are registered, however, so far as the present
petitioner is concerned, he has committed only one crime that
too in the year 2024 with the gang leader, therefore the
activities of the petitioner cannot be said to be committed by an
organized group of criminals.
2Cri WP95.26.odt
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am
inclined to allow the petition, hence the following order:-
ORDER
(I) Criminal petition is allowed.
(II) The order dated 19.11.2025 passed in appeal
No.109/2025 by the respondent No.1 i.e. Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the order
dated 18.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2 -
Superintendent of Police, Wardha are hereby quashed
and set aside.
10. Rules is made absolute in above terms.
( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/02/2026 10:49:12
