Bhavesh @ Lalu Prabhakar Chauhan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 97 Bom

Bombay High Court

Bhavesh @ Lalu Prabhakar Chauhan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 January, 2026

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2026:BHC-AS:946

                                                                                          -WP-2154-2025.DOC



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 2154 OF 2025


                        Bhavesh @ Lalu Prabhakar Chauhan
                        Age: 29 years,
                        R/o Room No. A-313, Sai Karan Appt,
                        Alkapuri, Nalasopara East,
                        Taluka Vasai, District Palghar                                        ..Petitioner

                               Versus

                        1. State of Maharashtra
                        (Though Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                        Division II, Vasai Mira Bayandar

                        2. The Divisional Commissioner,
                        Konkan Division, Mumbai.                                        ...Respondents

                        Mr. Kedar J Patil, with Sakshi S Kadam, for the Petitioner.
                        Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, APP, for the Respondents.
                        Mr. Mangesh Vadne, PSI, Achole Police Station.

                                                        CORAM:          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                        DATE :          7th JANUARY 2026
                        JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of

the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

2. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the

Petitioner takes exception to an order dated 27 th March 2025, whereby

the Divisional Revenue Commissioner dismissed the Appeal preferred by

the Petitioner being Appeal No. 190 of 2024 against an order of

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

externment of the Petitioner from limits of Palghar, Thane, Nashik, Navi

Mumbai, Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts for a term of 18

months by affirming the said order.

3. In the wake of the registration of nine crimes against the

Petitioner during the period 2019 to 2023, at Achole and Tulinj Police

Station, primarily for the bodily offences punishable under Chapter XVI

of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 ("the Penal Code"), a notice was served

on the Petitioner on 16th September 2024, under Section 59 of the

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 ("the Police Act, 1951") calling upon the

Petitioner to show cause as to why the Petitioner shall not be externed

by invoking the power under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Police Act,

1951 from the limits of abovenamed districts for a term of two years. It

was inter alia recorded that the Petitioner had been indulging in the

offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Penal Code and

the movements or acts of the Petitioner were causing or calculated to

cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property and the witnesses

were not willing to come forward to give evidence in public by raising

an apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or

property. The Petitioner, however, did not appear before the Competent

Authority and furnish explanation.

4. By the impugned order, the Special Executive Magistrate and

Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-2, Vasai, was persuaded to extern

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

the Petitioner for a term of 18 months from Palghar, Thane, Nashik,

Navi Mumbai, Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts.

5. Being aggrieved the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the

Divisional Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 27th March

2025, the said Appeal came to be dismissed by affirming the order

dated 14th November 2024 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate.

Being further aggrieved the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

6. I have heard Mr. Kedar Patil, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner, and Smt. R.S. Tendulkar, the learned APP for the Respondent.

With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have

perused the material on record.

7. Mr. Kedar Patil mounted a two-pronged challenge to the

externment order. First, it was submitted that the gist of the confidential

statements of the witnesses who were allegedly not willing to come

forward to give evidence in public fearing retaliation, was not

incorporated in the show-cause notice. Secondly, Mr. Patil would urge,

the order of externment suffers from the vice of arbitrary exercise of the

powers as though the Petitioner has been arraigned in the offences

committed within the local limits of Achole and Tulunj Police Station,

District Palghar, yet, the Competent Authority externed the Petitioner

from six Districts, which cover a large area without there being any

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

nexus between all those Districts with the acts and conduct of the

Petitioner.

8. In opposition to this, Smt. Tendulkar, the learned APP stoutly

supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the Authorities

have recorded concurrent findings which indicate that the order of

externment was based on objective material. The sufficiency or

adequacy of the material cannot be examined by this Court in exercise

of the Writ jurisdiction. An endeavour was made by Smt. Tendulkar to

draw home the point that in the impugned order the Competent

Authority has referred to the fact that the associates of the Petitioner

and their sureties were residing in those Districts and, therefore, the

externment order was required to be passed to effectively protect the

citizens from the acts and conduct of the Petitioner.

9. Indeed, in the show-cause notice dated 16 th September 2024,

there is a reference to the fact that the Petitioner has created a reign of

terror in the limits of Achole and Tulunj Police Station and, thus, the

residents of the said locality were not willing to come forward to give

evidence in public. However, there is no reference to the gist of the

statements of the confidential statements in the show-cause notice.

10. It is well-recognized measure of externment, by its very nature, is

extra-ordinary. An order of externment has the effect of forced

displacement from the home and surroundings. Often it affects the

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

livelihood of the person and the dependents on him. Thus to invoke the

power under Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 56 of the Police

Act, 1951 the externing authority must be satisfied on the basis of the

object material that the movements or acts of the person to be externed

are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or

property. Under Clause (b), 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 about to be engaged in the commission of

offences involving force or violence and the witnesses were not willing

to come forward to give evidence in public fearing safety of their person

or property.

11. Secondly, there ought to be some co-relation between the area

from which the externee is ordered to be externed and the acts and

movements of externee. The externee is externed from a particular area

with a view to disable him by moving him away from surroundings

which prove favourable for the commission of the offences and thereby

disarm his influence in the said area.

12. Although the Competent Authority is vested with discretion to

extern a person from a much larger area than the area of his influence,

the discretion is not unfettered or uncanalized. If it could be

demonstrated that externment of a person from a larger area is

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

necessary in order to sweep the person off his moorings, the Authority

may order the externment from a larger area. However, some material

must be on record to justify the exercise of discretion to extern the

externee from a larger area. At the same time, it deserves to be kept in

view that the sufficiency or adequacy of the material is not to be

evaluated by the Writ Court.

13. On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the case, on

the first count of absence of the gist of the statements of the witnesses

in the show-cause notice, it would be suffice to note that, it is not

peremptory to furnish the gist of statements of the confidential

witnesses in the show-cause notice. In the case of Sumit S/o

Ramkrishna Maraskolhe Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-1

Nagpur and Anr,1 a Full Bench of this Court has resolved the

controversy as regards the necessity of furnishing the details or the

particulars of the in-camera statements to the prospective externee. The

observations in paragraph 45 read as under:

"45. .........

It is not necessary to state in the show-cause notice the details or the particulars of in-camera statements recorded by the externing authority and only the general nature of material allegations is all that is necessary to be said in the show-cause notice. In other words, it is sufficient compliance with the requirement of law if the show cause notice refers in general terms to the material allegations against the

1 2019(2) MhLJ 745.

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

proposed externee and when the action is under Section 56 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951 it also generally says that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externee due to fear, alarm, danger or harm to the person or property, as the case may be."

(emphasis supplied)

14. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the first

ground of challenge to the impugned order falls through.

15. On the second count of the externment order being excessive in

nature, again a profitable reference can be made to the enunciation of

law in the case of Sumit S/o Ramkrishna Maraskolhe (Supra). In

paragraph 26 of the judgment the Full Bench recorded the conclusions

as under:

"26. The discussion made so far would lead us to record our conclusions as follows :

(i) The externment order directing externment of a person from a much larger area than the one of his illegal activities, must be based upon some material which provides an objective criteria to the authority for reaching a subjective satisfaction regarding the need for externing a person to an expansive area though it may not always directly or elaborately refer to that material in the order itself, as it all depends upon facts and circumstances of the case which need be vetted through the judicial process of drawing of legitimate inference following the law of Pandharinath Shridhar Ragnekar Vs Dy Commr. Of Police, The State of Maharashtra (1973) 1 SCC 372 and State of NCT of Delhi & anr Vs Sanjeev alias Bittoo 2005 SCC (Cri) 1025.

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

(ii) The order of externment need not necessarily refer to the details of the material considered by it so as to show independently that larger or additional area chosen by it is intimately connected with the actual area of the activities of the externee due to improved or common means of transport and communication.

(iii) Application of mind to the material present on record by the authority passing the externment order is necessary, but any reflection of application of mind in the externment order in a specific manner, as if to pass a reasoned order, would not be necessary. It would be enough if the order discloses that the subjective satisfaction has been reached by considering the material available on record and it would and should be a matter of legitimate inference that the authority, while considering materials to satisfy itself about the need for and extent of externment to be ordered, also considered all the options available to it and selected in it's wisdom the one which it thought to be most appropriate. This would also mean that authority, in this way, can select a larger area for being covered under it's externment order, as one of the options available to it, whether such larger area has within it contiguous or interconnected or intimately connected pockets of areas or not.

Question no. (1) having three aspects enumerated in clauses

(a), (b) and (c), is answered specifically through the three conclusions made as above."

16. In the case at hand, from the perusal of the impugned order, it

becomes abundantly clear that the crimes were registered against the

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

Petitioner in Achole and Tulunj Police Station of Palghal District.

Secondly, the impugned order refers to the alleged reign of terror

created by the Petitioner within the limits of Achole and Tulunj Police

Station only. It is in the passing there is reference to the fact that other

associates of the Petitioner and their sureties were residing within the

local limits of the Thane, Nashik, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai City and

Mumbai Suburban Districts.

17. I am afraid the aforesaid consideration can be said to be adequate

to sustain the order of externment from a much larger area. The

Competent Authority has not recorded that the Petitioner was engaged

in the offences within the local limits of the jurisdiction of Thane,

Nashik, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts or

otherwise exercised influence over the said areas as well. In contrast it

was categorically contended that the residents within the limits of

Achole and Tulunj Police Station were not willing to come forward to

give evidence. In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was no

material to demonstrate that the order of externment from such an

expansive area was warranted.

18. In substance, the order passed by the Competent Authority does

not disclose that subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the

Competent Authority by considering the material available on record as

regards the area of externment.

-WP-2154-2025.DOC

19. For the forgoing reasons, the externment order appears to be

arbitrary and puts an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental

rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 19(1)(d) of the

Constitution of India. Resultantly, the impugned order deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

20. Hence, the following order:

                (i)     The Petition stands allowed.

                (ii)    Impugned order dated 27th March 2025 stands

                quashed and set aside.

(iii) Resultanlty, the externment order passed by

the Special Executive Magistrate and Deputy

Commissioner of Police Zone-2 dated 14th November

2024 also stands quashed and set aside.

(iv) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

No costs.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]