Salaman Siraj Naje vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 2774 Bom

Bombay High Court

Salaman Siraj Naje vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 March, 2026

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2026:BHC-AS:13182
                                                                           -CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

                                                                                              Santosh

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4881 OF 2025

                       Salman Siraj Naje                                             ...Petitioner
                                          Versus
                       1. The State of Maharashtra

 SANTOSH               2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karjat, Taluka
 SUBHASH               Karjat, District Raigad
 KULKARNI
 Digitally signed by   3. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan
 SANTOSH SUBHASH
 KULKARNI
 Date: 2026.03.17
                       Division, Mumbai, Appellate Authority,
 20:42:33 +0530
                       Mumbai Division, Mumbai
                                                                                ...Respondents

                       Mr. Vishal Patil, a/w Afsar Ansari and P. R. Rathod, for the
                             Petitioner.
                       Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP for the State.

                                                              CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                          Reserved On: 5th MARCH, 2026
                                                       Pronounced On: 17th MARCH, 2026

                       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 petitioner takes exception to an order

dated 14th August, 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner,

Konkan Division, Mumbai, in Appeal No.73/2025, whereby the

appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 60 of the

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 ("the Act, 1951") against an order

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

of externment dated 27th May, 2025, passed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Karjat, under the provisions of Section 56(1)

(a) and (b) of the Act, 1951, came to be dismissed by affirming

the said order of externment.

3. On 30th December, 2024, a notice was served on the

petitioner under Section 59 of the Police Act, 1951 calling upon

the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be

taken against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 56

of the Police Act, 1951 as the acts and movements of the

petitioner were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger, or

harm to the person or property, and that there were reasonable

grounds to believe that the petitioner was engaged or was about

to engaged in the commission of offences involving force or

violence, and the conduct of the petitioner appeared to be

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and despite

prohibitory action, there was no improvement in the behaviour

of the petitioner.

4. After appraisal of the material on record and the cause

shown by the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an

order on 27th May, 2025 observing, inter alia, that crimes were

registered against the petitioner since the year 2016, and even

during the pendency of the externment proceedings, an offence

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

punishable under Section 194(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 ("BNS, 2023"), came to be registered against the

petitioner. If the petitioner was not externed, a serious law and

order situation was likely to arise. Thus, the petitioner came to

be externed from the limits of Raigad District for a term of one

year.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before

the Divisional Commissioner under Section 60 of the Police Act,

1951. By the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner was

persuaded to dismiss the appeal.

6. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this

petition.

7. I have heard Mr. Vishal Patil, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, and Mr. D. J. Haldankar, the learned APP for the

State, at some length. With the assistance of the learned

Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record.

8. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the order of externment suffers from the vice of non-

application of mind in as much as the crimes in which the

petitioner has been acquitted, or 'C' Summary/NC final reports

were filed, have been taken into account. Secondly, the

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

Externing Authority has considered the offences under the

Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and The Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which do not fall within the

ambit of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Police

Act, 1951. Thirdly, the Externing Authority as well as the

Appellate Authority have ascribed reasons which are far beyond

the causes enumerated in Section 56 of the Police Act, 1951 to

justify the order of externment.

9. Mr. Haldankar, the learned APP for the State, resisted the

submissions on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Haldankar would

urge that, the material on record would indicate a consistent

course of violent and unlawful actions on the part of the

petitioner. A number of offences against the persons or

property, and in relation to cruelty to the animals, have been

registered against the petitioner. Even during the pendency of

the externment proceedings, an offence punishable under

Section 194(2) of BNS, 2023 came to be registered against the

petitioner. As the petitioner can be said to have created a reign

of terror and thereby caused alarm or danger to the persons or

property, the externment order was justifiably passed by the

Competent Authority, submitted Mr. Haldankar.

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

10. The petitioner was ordered to be externed by invoking the

provisions contained in Section 56(1)(a) and (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. Thus, there must exist a justifiable

ground to sustain an order of externment. The order of

externment, therefore, must be strictly within the bounds of the

statutory provisions. Under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of

Section 56, the externing authority must be satisfied on the

basis of the objective 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) 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 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 element of force or violence or fall under Chapters

XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

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.

11. 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 for safety of their person or property.

12. The Competent Authority has taken into account the

following crimes registered against the petitioner:

Sr. No. Police C. R. No. Sections Current status Station 1 Neral 02 of 2016 307, 326, 143, 147, 148, 'C' Summary 149 of IPC Report referred to the Court 2 Neral 119 of 2019 5(a), 5(b) r/w 9 of the Pending Animal Preservation Act with 11(1)(d)(j) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 3 Neral 77 of 2020 324, 504, 427 of IPC NC final summary report referred to the Court 4 Neral 98 of 2020 379, 511 34 of the IPC By order dated 26/10/2020 released on by paying the panalty.

5 Neral 142 of 2020 324, 504 of IPC Acquitted 6 Neral 153 of 2021 5(a), 5(b) r/w 9 of the Pending

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

Animal Preservation Act with 11(1)(d)(j) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 7 Neral 84 of 2023 429, 201 with the Animal Pending Preservation Act (a)(b), 9 8 Neral 290 of 2023 Animal Preservation Act (a) Pending

(b), 9 with 11(1)(d)(j) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 9 Neral 331 of 2023 354, 324, 147, 148, 149, Pending 427 of the IPC and 37(1)(3), 135 of Mumbai Police Act 10 Neral 246 of 2024 194(2) of BNS, 2023 Pending

13. It seems that, out of the seven crimes registered against

the petitioner for the offences punishable under the Indian

Penal Code, the petitioner has been acquitted in a prosecution

arising from one crime i.e. CR No.142/2020 (Sr.No.5); and in CR

No.2/2016 (Sr.No.1), 'C' Summary Report has been filed, and in

CR No.77/2020 (Sr. No.3) NC Final Summary Report has been

submitted. It seems that, the proceedings arising out of CR

No.98/2020 have also terminated by an order dated 26 th

October, 2020. CR No.84/2023 (Sr. No.7) seems to have been

registered for having committed mischief punishable under

Section 429 of the Penal Code and for the offences punishable

under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act. Likewise,

three crimes i.e. CR No.119/2019 (Sr.No.2), CR No.153/2021 (Sr

No.6) and CR No.290/2023 (Sr. No.8) are registered for the

offences punishable under the Maharashtra Animal

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

Preservation Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

Evidently, these crimes do not fall within the ambit of the

offences covered by clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Police Act,

1951. Even CR No.246/2024 (Sr. No.10) which was allegedly

registered during the pendency of the externment proceeding, is

not covered by clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Police Act, 1951.

14. As noted above, mere registration of the crimes for the

offences covered by clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Police Act,

1951 is of no significance. The Externing Authority must

further record subjective satisfaction on the basis of the

objective material that on account of the reign of terror created

by the externee, the witnesses were not coming forward to give

evidence against the externee in public fearing for the safety of

their person or property.

15. In the case at hand, the exterment order singularly lacks

consideration on the aspect of the witnesses not coming forward

to give evidence against the externee in public. Neither the

Competent Authority has considered the statements of the

confidential witnesses, nor any objective opinion to that effect

has been recorded.

16. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the

externment order is vitiated on account of being influenced by

-CRIWP4881-2025.DOC

irrelevant considerations. To put it in other words, the

Competent Authority erred in taking into account the crimes in

which the petitioner has already been acquitted or 'C'

Summary/NC Final Report has been filed, and the offences

which are not covered by clause (b) of Section 56(1) of the Police

Act, 1951. Furthermore, the failure to record the opinion that

the witnesses were not coming forward to give evidence in public

against the petitioner fearing for the safety of their person or

property, on the basis of objective material, renders the

externment order infirm. The Appellate Authority also failed to

correct the errors committed by the Competent Authority.

17. Resultanly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

18. Hence, the following order:

:ORDER:

(i)      The petition stands allowed.


(ii)     The impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 as well as

the order of externment dated 27 th May, 2025 passed by

the Competent Authority stand quashed and set aside.

(iii) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]