[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Akash Abhiman Gavli And Ors vs Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Div. ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:2253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6206 OF 2025
1. Akash Abhiman Gavli,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/at Chawl No.2,
Room No. 8, Sai Siddhi CHS,
Nandadeep Nagar, Poona Link Road,
Chakki Naka, Kalyan (E), Thane
2. Shyam Abhiman Gavli,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
R/at Durga Apartment,
B2, Flat No. 5, Durga Nagar,
Malang Road, Hanuman Mandir,
Kalyan (E), Thane.
3. Navnath Abhiman Gavli,
Age: 26 years, Nanda Deep Apartment,
1st Floor, Room No. 104, Nanda Deep Nagar,
Poona Link Road, Kalyan (E), Thane ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Div.
Old Secretariat, Fort, Mumbai
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
2. The Dy Commissioner of Police
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.01.17
20:29:59 +0530
Zone-3, Kalyan
[email protected]
3. The State of Maharashtra
Through P. P. High Court,
Bombay. ...Respondents
Mr. Irfan A Shaikh, for the Petitioners.
Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, APP, for the Respondents-State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 16th JANUARY 2026
ARS 1/9
::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:35:06 :::
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioners take exception to an order dated 11 th January
2025 of externment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-
3, Kalyan, purportedly in exercise of the power under Section 55 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 ("the Police Act, 1951") for a term of two
years from the limits of Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and
Raigad Districts, and the order dated 31 st October 2025 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, whereby the Appeal
preferred by the Petitioners came to be dismissed by affirming the order
of externment.
3. A notice dated 9th January 2025 was served on the Petitioners to
show cause as to why the Petitioners be not externed from Mumbai City,
Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad Districts, for a term of two years
as the movement of the Petitioners, as a gang, was causing or was
calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that
unlawful designs were entertained by the gang of the Petitioners. A
reference was made to the crimes registered against the Petitioners and
prohibitory actions initiated against them.
4. By an order dated 11th January 2025, the Petitioners were
externed from the limits of Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and
Raigad Districts for a term of two years, observing inter alia that the
Akash Gavali, Petitioner No.1 was the gang leader, and Petitioner Nos. 2
and 3 were the members, of the said gang and the Petitioners had
created a reign of terror within the limits of Kolsewadi Police Station
and the ad-joining areas and the acts and movements of the gang were
causing or calculated to cause danger or alarm and there was a
reasonable suspicion that the Petitioners entertained unlawful design.
5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred an Appeal under
Section 60 of the Police Act, 1951 before the Divisional Commissioner,
Konkan Division. By the impugned order dated 31 st October 2025, the
Divisional Commissioner declined to interfere with the order of
externment recording a view that in the circumstances of the case the
measure of externment under Section 55 of the Police Act, 1951, was
justifiable.
6. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioners have invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
7. Mr. Irfan A Shaikh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners,
mounted a multi-fold challenge to the impugned orders. Firstly, it was
submitted that the impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-
application of mind as the Competent Authority took into account a
crime registered against the Petitioners a decade ago, i.e., CR No. 150 of
2015. There was no live-link between the said crime and the measure of
the externment. Secondly, the Competent Authority committed a
manifest error in initiating action against the Petitioners only, when in
the CR No. 150 of 2015 as many as seven accused were arraigned.
Selective action against the Petitioners, therefore, falls foul of the object
of the Section 55 of the Police Act, 1951. Thirdly, Mr. Shaikh would
urge, the externment of the Petitioners for the full term of two years
was wholly arbitrary. No justifiable reason has been ascribed for the
externment for the Petitioners for the term of two years or for not
directing the Petitioners to regulate their conduct in order to prevent
violence and alarm.
8. In opposition to this Smt. Tendulkar, the learned APP for the
State, endeavoured to support the impugned orders. It was submitted
that on account of the Petitioners continuous course of unlawful
activities the Competent Authority was justified in initiating action
under Section 55 of the Police Act, 1951.
9. From the perusal of the order of externment passed by the
Competent Authority, it becomes evident that the following crimes have
been registered against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.
Sr. Police CR No. Sections Status
No. Station
1 Kolsewadi 150/2015 Sections 307, 452, 143, Pending
147, 148, 149, 504 read
with Sections 4 and 25 of
the Arms Act, with
Section 37 (1) and 135 of
the Police Act, 1951.
2 Kolsewadi N.C. No. 3866/2024 BNS Section 351(2), 352.
10. Qua Petitioner No.3, the following crimes have been registered.
Sr. Police CR No. Sections Status
No. Station
1 Kolsewadi 150/2015 Sections 307, 452, 143, Proved.
147, 148, 149, 504 read JJB,
with Sections 4 and 25 of Bhiwandi
the Arms Act, with
Section 37 (1) and 135 of
the Police Act, 1951.
2 Kolsewadi 615/2019 Section 8(c) and 27 of Pending
NDPS Act, 1985
3 Kolsewadi N.C. No. 3866/2024 BNS Section 351(2), 352.
11. Evidently in only one CR, i.e. CR No. 150 of 2015, all the
Petitioners appear to have been arraigned. In addition, the Authorities
have noted that Chapter proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2,
in the year 2015, only.
12. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the
Police Act, 1951, indicates that the linchpin of the said provision is
participation by all the alleged gang members or body of persons and
collective action against all such persons.
13. In the case of Ahammad Mainuddin Shaikh Vs The State of
Maharashtra Through the Secretary (Special), Home Department
Mantralaya and Anr,1 a Division Bench of this Court enunciated that
Section 55 starts with gang or body of persons, sails through the
dangerous impressions that the movement or encampment of gang or
body of person creates and ends with a direction of removal passed
against each of the members of the gang or body of persons. This
common thread is the essence of Section 55 and that is the mandate of
the legislature. In other words, Section 55 would be applicable only
when the persons are seen to be acting as members of the gang or body
of persons and it is only then that action under Section 55 of the Act
can be taken and which is to be taken against all members and not only
against few of them selectively. Discrimination between the members of
the gang is not permissible in law. Section 55 of the Act contemplates a
collective action against the gang or body of persons and, therefore, the
final direction that is required to be issued in terms of this section,
would also have to be necessarily against each of the members of the
gang and not against one or a few them on selective basis.
1 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1042.
14. In the case of Vijay Lalaso Jadhav V/s. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.2, another Division Bench of this Court enunciated the law as
under :
"8...... Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act
contemplates collective action against the gang or body
of persons and therefore, the final direction which is
required to be issued in terms of the said Section, will
have to be necessarily against each of the members of
the gang and not against one or a few of them on
selective basis. It is therefore, apparent that an illegality
has been committed by both the Authorities, i.e. the
Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority by
passing the externment order and confirming the same
only qua the Petitioners and not against the other
members of the alleged gang."
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the light of the aforesaid position in law, reverting to the facts
of the case, first and foremost, a period of 10 years is too long to
countenance a contention that on account of a registration of the said
crime against the Petitioners in the year 2015, they continued to act as
members of the gang, especially, in the absence of any other offence
registered against the Petitioners collectively. The material on record
singularly fails to make out a case that the Petitioners were acting as
members of the gang or body of persons. Thus, the primary element to
sustain an action under Section 55 of the cannot be said to have been
fulfilled.
2 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1277
16. Secondly, it could not be controverted that there were other
persons who were also arraigned as accused in CR No. 150 of 2015. The
said fact becomes evident from the offence for which the Petitioners
have been arraigned in CR No. 150 of 2015, i.e., Sections 307, 452,
143, 147, 148, 149, 504 read with Sections 4 and 25 of the Penal
Code,and Section 37(1), 135 of the Police Act, 1951. As the indictment
against the Petitioners in the said crime is that the offences were
committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful
assembly, the involvement of the other accused, apart from the
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, in the said crime, can hardly to be put in context.
17. Evidently, the other accused in CR No. 150 of 2015 have not been
proceeded against. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the Competent
Authority initiated action against gang members or body of persons
with a view to disperse them. In contrast, the Competent Authority
resorted to the measure of externment against the Petitioners on
selective basis. Thus the second major ingredient to justify the action
under Section 55 of the Police Act, 1951, was also not fulfilled.
18. Incontrovertibly, the live-link between the registration of CR No.
150 of 2015 and the impugned order of externment, after a period of
almost 10 years of the registration of the said crime, was completely
snapped. Thus I find substance in the submission of the Petitioners that,
the impugned orders suffer from a clear non-application of mind.
19. Resultantly, the Petition deserves to be allowed.
20. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 31st October
2025 stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) The order of externment dated 11 th January
2025 passed by the Competent Authority also
stands quashed and set aside.
(iv) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
