[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Angad @ Yadvendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
1 WP-9938-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9938 of 2026
ANGAD @ YADVENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jafar Khan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Kanak Gaharwar - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority had
earlier considered the proposal and rejected it. However, the same authority,
on the basis of same material, has now accepted the proposal. Therefore,
impugned order of externment for a period of nine months is illegal and
contrary to the settled position of law.
2. He has further submitted that the order of externment is very harsh
on the present petitioner, as the petitioner has not been involved in any
criminal activity since the year 2003. Therefore, he contended that no case is
made out for passing such an order of externment as required under the law.
Consequently, the order passed by the authority is bad in law and in violation
of the principles of law as well as the Constitution, and therefore,
interference is called for.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the same by drawing
2 WP-9938-2026
attention to the findings in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. She further
submitted that there are several criminal antecedents, and after being satisfied
with the material available on record, the authority passed the order for a
limited period of 9 months; therefore, no interference is called for.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties. I have also considered the fact that this is a case involving the
subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. Such a case is required to
be decided on the basis of the authority's subjective satisfaction. Upon
perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the authority has considered all
relevant aspects, particularly by providing reasons in paragraph 4.
The relevant paragraph 4 of the impugned order reads as under.-
"4- करण म अधीन थ यायालय के अिभलेख का अवलोकन कया गया एवं
अपीलाथ ारा तुत तक का प रशीलन कया गया ।
करण म अधीन थ यायालय के अिभलेख का अवलोकन करने पर पाया जाता है
क अपीलाथ पर 16 अपराध पंजीब कये गये ह उसम कुछ गंभीर धाराओं म भी
अपराध कायम कये गये ह। जसम अपीलाथ का कहना है क उसे अिधकतम
करण म स म यायालय ारा उसे दोषमु कया गया है । पर तु वष 2023 म
अपीलाथ के व धारा 307 म अपराध पंजीब कया गया है जो गंभीर वृ क
ण
े ी म आता है । अपीलाथ अपने आपरािधक कृ य के सहारे थाना े म
प रशांित भंग कर उप व क थित िनिमत कर मानव शर र या संप को सं ास
खतरा या अपहािन का रत कर सकता है । अपीलाथ के व कई बार
ितबंधा मक कायवाह भी क गई है
उसके उपरांत भी अपीलाथ क गित विधय म कोई सुधार नह ं पाया गया है ।
करण म तुत अिभलेख से प है क अिधकतर करण म अपीलाथ को
स म यायालय ारा राजीनामा एवं गवाह के प वरोधी होने के आधार पर
करण समा कये गये ह। जससे तीत होता है क कह ं न कह ं इसके पीछे
अपीलाथ का गवाह एवं पी डत के ऊपर दबाव भी हो सकता है । अपीलाथ के व
वष 2010 से लगातार आपरािधक करण दज होते रहे ह। साथ ह अपीलाथ के
व भारतीय द ड सं हता क धारा 506, 302, तथा 307 एवं 3(2-5) एस-सी/एस-
ट ए ट आपरािधक करण कायम हुये ह जो क गंभीर वृ के ह। अपीलाथ के
कृ य से प तीत होता है क वह अपने को आपरािधक गित विधय म संल न
रखे हुये ह एवं भ व य म भी कसी अपराध अथवा अपराध के द ु ेरण म वयं को
संल न कर सकता है । ऐसी थित म अधीन थ यायालय ारा पा रत आदे श म
ह त ेप क आव यकता तीत नह ं होती है ।
अतः अधीन थ यायालय ारा पा रत आदे श दनांक 28/10/2025 यथावत रखा
3 WP-9938-2026
जाता है एवं अपीलाथ ारा तुत अपील इसी तर पर अपा त क जाती है ।
इस आदे श क मा णत ित स हत अधीन थ यायालय को रकाड भेजा जावे।
करण दा खल रकाड हो ।"
5. Considering the findings of the authority, I find that there is no
perversity or illegality committed by the authority. Nor can it be said that the
order is against any settled position of law, especially when the present
petitioner is involved in 16 offences. Furthermore, in many of the trials, the
proceedings have failed due to settlements arrived between the witnesses.
6. The case also reflects the reality of the situation, particularly when
considering the impact of such criminal activity on society. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the authority has committed any error in passing such
an order. The authority is empowered to pass such orders to prevent further
illegality in future, particularly in respect of a person having criminal
antecedents.
7. Therefore, considering all these aspects and the totality of the facts
and circumstances, I find that no error has been committed by the authority,
which has provided cogent and sufficient reasons for its decision and
therefore, no interference is called for, and the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
R
