Shailendra Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 January, 2026

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1400




                                                              1                               WA-176-2026
                             IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                           &
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
                                                 ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
                                                  WRIT APPEAL No. 176 of 2026
                                                 SHAILENDRA PAWAR
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                   Shri Varun Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
                                   Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Dy. Advocate General for the respondent /
                          State.

                                                                  ORDER

Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla

The present inter-Court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the Writ Petition No.32180/2025 filed by

the appellant challenging the order of externment dated 24.03.2025 and also appellate order dated 29.06.2025 passed under the provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred as "Adhiniyam, 1990") .

02. The facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the Superintendent of Police, Dewas submitted a report dated 22.11.2024 requesting for externment and appropriate action against Shailendra Pawar under Section 5 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1400

2 WA-176-2026 Adhiniyam, 1990. The District Magistrate issued show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner Shailendra appeared and submitted written reply and arguments. The District Magistrate on hearing both the parties passed the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 directing externment of Shailendra Pawar for a period of one year from District Dewas and adjoining districts Indore, Ujjain, Shajapur, Sehore, Harda, Khandwa and Khargone.

03. The writ petitioner submitted an appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 before the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, District Ujjain. The Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain vide impugned order dated 29.06.2025 passed in Case No.26/Appeal/2025-26, after hearing both the

parties, rejected the appeal and confirmed the order dated 24.03.2025 of District Magistrate, District Dewas.

04. The Superintendent of Police, Dewas had reported 12 criminal cases against the writ petitioner, out of which 05 cases have been disposed off and 03 cases are pending for trial before the Court. The investigation in Crime No. 489/2024 and Crime No. 375/2024 is pending. Other matters relating to prohibitory proceedings have been disposed of. The writ petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.247/2016, Crime No.582/2014 and Crime No.345/2018. The District Magistrate, District Dewas did not consider these aspects of the matter. The District Magistrate relied on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, District Dewas without verifying the facts contained therein, No witness was examined.

05. Counsel for the respondent / State supported the order of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1400

3 WA-176-2026 externment, appellate order as well as order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly affirmed the validity of the order of externment taking into consideration the criminal record of the appellant.

06. Counsel for the appellant mainly challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the requirement for passing an order of externment that two conditions must be satisfied as per Section 5(b) of Adhiniyam, 1990, which are as under:

"(i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaged or is about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI, or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment of any such offence; and

(ii) In the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property."

07. The aforesaid provision has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel V/s State of M.P. & others, 2009 (4) MPLJ 434, after considering Section 5 of the Act held thus:

"8. The expression is engaged or is about to be engaged" in the commission of offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under Section 506 or 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment of any such offence, shows that the commission of the offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have a very close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Act of 1990. Hence, if a person was engaged in the commission of offence or in abetment of an offence of the type mentioned in section 5 (b), several years or several months back, thee cannot be any reasonable ground for believing that the 6 person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of such offence."

08. In the case of Ramgopal Ragjhuvanshi vs. State of M.P. and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1400

4 WA-176-2026 others, 2014(4) MPLJ 654, this Court after considering the earlier judgments in respect of Section 5 of the Act held that the order of externment cannot be passed on the basis of old and stale cases. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the case of Bhim @ Vipul vs. Home Department, (W.P. No.4329/2015, decided on 14.09.2015) has also considered the judgments rendered in the cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Ramgopal Raghuvanshi (supra) and held that the expression "engaged or is to be engaged" used in Section 5(b)(i) shows that commission of offence or the abetment of such offence by the person must have close proximity to the date on which the order is proposed to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Act.

09. This Court in the case of Meena Sonkar V/s State of M.P. and others, 2017(2) MPLJ 565 and also in the case of Anek alias Anil Nageshwar V/s State of Madhya Pradesh & four others (W.P. No.9297/2017, decided on 8-8-2017) held as under:

"The second requirement is also necessitated to pass an order of externment that on account of the activities of a person, who is externed, the witnesses amongst public are not coming forth to depose in the criminal cases against him either under apprehension of person or property. But in the order impugned existence of such material is not on record, more so, no such finding has been recorded by the competent authority to record satisfaction. Therefore, the orderimpugned do not fulfill the second requirement of Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam."

10. In the present case there is no satisfaction of the District Magistrate in the impugned order regarding second requirement of Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. He has not recorded his satisfaction on the basis of materials that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in the public against the petitioner by the reasons of apprehension as regards to their safety. The authority has not considered the nature of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1400

5 WA-176-2026

cases, the date of registration of cases and their present status. There is no material that the witnesses were not coming forward because of terror of the appellant.

11. Under the provision of Section 5 of the Act, if a detention order has to be passed, there has to be sufficient material for passing the order as fundamental right of freedom of a person is involved. The order passed by the appellate Authority is nothing but repetition of the order passed by the District Magistrate without any application of mind. Apart from that, we find that out of the period of 1 year, 10 months period of externment has already undergone.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32180/2025 is set aside. As a consequence, the order dated 29.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division and externment order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the District Magistrate are also set aside.

13. With the aforesaid, this Writ Appeal stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE JUDGE Divyansh