AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties is taken up for the final disposal.
By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the Externment Order No.706/2026 dated 16/03/2026 passed by Respondent No.2, the Superintendent of Police, Satara and also the order dated 07/05/2026 passed by the Commissioner of olice, Pune Division in ExternmentAppeal No./ SR/86/2026.
By the impugned order dated 16/03/2026, the Superintendent of Police, Satara externed the Petitioners from the jurisdiction of Satara and Pune districts for a period of 6 months and by the impugned order dated 07/05/2026, the Commissioner of Police, Pune Division, dismissed the Appeal by confirming the said order.
The impunged externment order externing the petitioners has been made pursuant to a proposal initiated by the Police Inspector, Shirval Police Station, Satara, under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 for externing the petitioners from the jurisdictions of Pune and Satara districts for a period of two years as it has been found that the Petitioner No. 1 (the gang leader) and Petitioner No. 2 (the gang member) were committing crimes against persons and properties such as land grabbing, assaulting and harassing common people and spreading terror in the Khandala area. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 14/02/2026 came to be issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to the petitioners, giving them an opportunity to present their case before the Superintendent of police, Satara. In addition to the said notice, the petitioners were also given an opportunity to represent themselves against the proposed externment. After hearing the petitioners and after considering the inquiry report submitted by Respondent no. 1, the Respondent No. 2 - Externing Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Satara passed the impugned order dated 16/03/2026, externing the petitioners from the jurisdictions of Satara and Pune Districts for a period of six months.
Against the aforesaid order of externment dated 16/03/2026 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Satara, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Externment Appeal No./ SR/86/2026, under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to the Commissioner of Police, Pune Division. The Commissioner of Police, Pune Division vide order dated 07/05/2026 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the order passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Satara, externing the petitioners from Satara District for a period of six months.
The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offences committed by the petitioner cannot be termed to be the offences committed by a gang under section 55. Following are the offences considered by the externing authority while passing the Externment Order :
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Cr. No. | Sections | Petitioner No. 1 | Petitioner No. 2 | Status |
| 1. | Shirwal | 313/2025 | 303(2), 3(5) of BNS | Yes | Yes | Under Investigation |
| 2. | Shirwal | 418/2024 | 75, 329(3), 189(2), 191(2) (3), 352, 351(3), 49, 324(5) of BNS | Yes | Yes | Under Investigation |
| 3. | Shirwal | 117/2024 | 341, 504 and 34 of IPC | Yes | No | Subjudice before the court |
| 4. | Shirwal | 276/2023 | 309, 34 of IPC | Yes | Yes | Acquitted |
| 5. | Shirwal | 113/2023 | 385, 427, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. | Yes | No | Subjudice before the court |
| 6. | Khandala 80/2024 | 186, 189, 268, 500, 37 of I.P.C. and 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act | Yes | Yes | Subjudice before the court | |
| 7. | Bhuinj | 145/2020 | 143, 147, 149, 447, 427, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. | Yes | Yes | Acquitted |
He, at the outset submitted that, out of the abovementioned crimes considered by the Respondent No. 2 for externment, the petitioners had already been acquitted by the learned JMFC in the proceedings arising out of Cr. No. 145/2020 registered with Bhuinj Police Station and Cr. No. 276/2023 registered with Shirwal Police Station. He submitted that Petitioner No. 1 was being shown as a gang leader and Petitioner No. 2 was shown as a member of gang and there are seven offences registered against Petitioner no. 1 whereas there are 5 offences registered against Petitioner no. 2. He further submitted that the Petitioners cannot be termed as a gang as the offences are individualistic in nature and they are not committed as a gang. He submitted that Cr. No. 313/2025 at Sr. no. 1 is actually a civil dispute given the colour of criminality and the investigation is still in progress. Cr. No. 418/ 2024 at Sr. No. 2 is also under investigation and chargesheet is yet to be filed. Cr. No. 177/2024 is registered only against Petitioner No. 1 for an offence of criminal trespass but is civil in nature which is pending before the court. Cr. No. 113/2023 is registered only against the Petitioner No. 1 and is a family dispute which is now amicably resolved. Cr. No. 80/2024 is a dispute regarding common water tank related to social work.
He submitted that, on the analysis of above mentioned crime details, there are a few crimes registered wherein both the petitioners are common, however there are crimes where neither the Petitioner no. 2 is accused nor the rest of the people are accused, therefore, just because different crimes had been registered against Petitioner no. 1, it cannot be said that the crimes are committed by a gang.
To buttress his submissions, he relied on the case of Shri Altaf Rajekhan Pathan & Ors. Vs. The Divisional Commissioner Pune & Ors. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 2454 of 2028. He specifically relied on para 23 :
"...23. We have gone through the FIRs which have been registered in the said two Writ Petitions. No doubt there are one or more cases registered against the gang leaders and the gang members in the said two Writ Petitions, however, there is no case registered collectively against all the members who allegedly constitute the gang or even a substantial number of them. In our view, therefore, the said cases also fall short of the requirements of there being a collective participation by all the gang members in the urlawful activity. Hence in our view, the said cases cannot be differentiated from the other cases which as indicated above are involving the singular cases only against the alleged gang leader and a member and not collectively against all the members who constitute a gang or at least a substantial number of them...."
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned externment order is discriminatory as the petitioners are the only persons externed and other co-accused named in FIR along with them are not externed. He further submitted that, the externing authority has not considered the nature of allegations of the aforesaid crimes and that most of the crimes are civil in nature given the colour of criminality. He further submitted that the In-camera statements were not verified. He submitted that Chapter proceedings in Chapter Case No. 17 of 2025 were intitiated against the petitioners on the basis of Cr. No. 313/2025 registered with Shirval Police Station; pursuant to that, the petitioners have furnished a security bond for keeping peace in the area for one year on 25/11/2025 and there are no crimes registered against them after that date. He further submitted that there is no live link between the crimes registered and initiation of the externment proceedings. He argued that the authority was silent for a period of 5 months from the last registered FIR and suddenly initiated externment proceedings and thus, there is no live link or urgency or compelling circumstances to invoke the externment provisions.
To canvass all his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners relied on the following cases :
Ahammad Mainuddin Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2385 of 2013
Vinod Raju Tejwal Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 650 of 2021
Vijay Lalso Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3510 of 2013
Ayub Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police 2013 SCC Online Bom 1179
Vishal @ Saki Sanjay Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Criminal Writ Petition 1268 of 2026
Shubham Kodwate Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 515 of 2022
Deepak Kailas Aglave Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2024
The Learned APP on the other hand sternly opposed quashing of the impunged externment order. He submitted that the Petitioners were committing crimes against persons and properties such as land grabbing, assaulting and harassing common people and spreading terror terror in the said region. Furthermore, he submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the externing authority is enough to pass an order under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police act.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned orders dated 16/03/2026 and 07/05/2026. The impugned order dated 16/03/2026 was passed by the Respondent No. 2 against the petitioners under section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act thereby externing them from the jurisdictions of Pune and Satara districts for a period of six months. The primary contention of the learned Counsel for Petitioners is that the crimes considered for passing of the impugned externment order are individualistic in nature and does not fall within the ambit of Section 55 of the act. It would be relevant to reproduce section 55 of the Act. It reads as under :
“55.Dispersal of gangs and body of persons.- Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and in areas in which a Commissioner is appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in a district to the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the District Superintendent specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf, that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by members thereof, such officer may, by notification addressed to the persons appearing to be the leaders or chief men of such gang or body and published by beat of drum or otherwise as such officer thinks fit, direct the members of such gang or body so to conduct themselves as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm, or disperse and each of them to remove himself outside the area within the local limits of his jurisdiction 3[or such area and any district, or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto] which in such time as such officer shall prescribe, and not to enter the area 4[or the area and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be], or return to the place from which each of them was directed to remove himself.”
It would also be relevant to reproduce the crimes registered against Petitioner No. 1 and 2. Following are the details of the crimes registered against Petitioner no. 1 -
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Cr. No. | Sections | Status |
| 1. | Shirwal | 313/2025 | 303(2), 3(5) of BNS | Under Investigation |
| 2. | Shirwal | 418/2024 | 75, 329(3), 189(2), 191(2) & (3), 352, 351(3), 49, 324(5) of BNS | Under Investigation |
| 3. | Shirwal | 117/2024 | 341, 504 and 34 of IPC | Subjudice before the court |
| 4. | Shirwal | 276/2023 | 309, 34 of IPC | Acquitted |
| 5. | Shirwal | 113/2023 | 385, 427, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. | Subjudice before the court |
| 6. | Khandala | 80/2024 | 186, 189, 268, 500, 37 of I.P.C. and 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act | Subjudice before the court |
| 7. | Bhuinj | 145/2020 | 143, 147, 149, 447, 427, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. | Acquitted |
| no. 2 - | Following are the details of the crimes registered against Petitioner | |||
| Sr. No. | Police Station | Cr. No. | Sections | Status |
| 1. | Shirwal | 313/2025 | 303(2), 3(5) of BNS | Under Investigation |
| 2. | Shirwal | 418/2024 | 75, 329(3), 189(2), 191(2) (3), 352, 351(3), 49, 324(5) of BNS | Under Investigation |
| 3. | Shirwal | 276/2023 | 309, 34 of IPC | Acquitted |
| 4. | Khandala | 80/2024 | 186, 189, 268, 500, 37 of I.P.C. and 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property Act | Subjudice before the court |
| 5. | Bhuinj | 145/2020 | 143, 147, 149, 447, 427, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. | Acquitted |
On perusal of the details of the abovementioned crimes, it is evident that both the petitioners have already been acquitted by the learned JMFC, Vai, Satara by the Judgement and Order dated 18/09/2023 arising out of Cr. No. 145/2020 registered with Bhuinj Police Station. The learned JMFC in an order below Exh. 1 in S.C.C. No. 511/2024 dated 17/03/2025 arising out of and Cr. No. 276/2023 registered with Shirwal Police Station has also acquitted both the petitioners. The Petitioner no. 2 is not an accused in Cr. No. 117/2023 and 113/2023 registered with Shirval Police Station. Cr. No. 313 of 2025 and 418 of 2025 registered with Shirval Police Station are committed by the petitioners along with other accused. It is pertinent to note, that apart from the aforesaid two petitioners, the aforesaid two cases were also registered as against other co-accused. In such circumstances, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of this court in Vijay Lalso Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 3510 of 2013]. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under :
“8.....A perusal of the aforesaid Section shows that the object of Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act is “dispersal of gangs and body of persons" and therefore, the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had no power to direct any individual person to be externed outside any district or districts or any part thereof, inasmuch as it could only be directed against all the members of a gang or a body of persons, as contemplated under Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act. The language of Section 55 shows that the power given to the Competent Authority can be exercised only in relation to any gang or a body of persons, whenever it appears to the Competent Authority, that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area in his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or a reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body or by members thereof. It is, therefore, evident that Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act does not contemplate movement or encampment of `a person' causing or calculated to cause danger or alarm, but, refers to movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger, etc. It is thus, evident from the language of Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act, that it's application is directed not against `any individual' but against any gang or body of persons or members of the gang.
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.”
It would also be relevant to quote the case of Ahammad Mainuddin Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Petition No. 2385 of 2013]. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
“8....Upon a careful reading of this section, it becomes clear that, whenever it appears to the competent authority that the movement or encampment of any gang or body of persons in the area under his charge is causing or is calculated to cause danger or alarm or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are entertained by such gang or body of persons or by its members, such officer may by notification addressed to the leaders or chief men of such gang or body of persons and suitably published, issue two types of directions. The first direction is about regulating of conduct of such gang or body of persons in a manner prescribed in the direction in order to prevent violence and alarm. Such direction, in the alternative, can also be in the form of an order for dispersal of members of such gang or body of persons. The second direction which follows the first one, is about removal of each of the members of the gang or body of persons outside the area within the local limits of jurisdiction of the competent authority. In suitable cases, the order of removal can also be from district or it's parts or together with contiguous districts or parts thereof. This second direction, in order to be reasonable, has to be passed for a definite period of time. In the entire section, there is common thread of participation by all and collective action against all that holds together all it's parts. The section starts with gang or body of persons, sails through the dangerous impressions that the movement or encampment of gang or body of persons 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 a few of them selectively.”
(emphasis supplied)
The law is well settled on the scope of section 55 of Maharashtra Police Act. Externement Order under section 55 can only be passed as a collective action against the gang or body of persons, therefore, the action will have to be necessarily against each members of the gang and not against one or few of them on selective basis. Common thread of participation by all and collective action against all the members is an essential criteria. The Respondent no. 2 has failed to demonstrate as to how Petitioner no. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 form a gang and fit into the squares of section 55 based on the abovementioned crimes when externment of other co-accused in the FIRs are not sought. In addition to this, the last offence registered against both the petitioners are dated 06/09/2025, whereas the show-cause notice was issued only on 14/02/2026. There is an unexplained delay of 5 months in initiating the externment proceeding against the petitioners. The petitioners have also furnished a security bond for keeping peace in the area for one year on 25/11/2025 pursuant to the Chapter Case No. 17 of 2025 and since then there are no criminal complaints filed against the petitioners. Be that as it may. I am of the opinion that the Externment Order deserves to be quashed and set aside for non fulfilment of the requirements as contemplated in section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act alone. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
a. The Externment Order/706/2026 dated 16/03/2026 passed by Respondent No.2, the Superintendent of Police, Satara and the order dated 07/05/2026 passed by Respondent No. 3, the Commissioner of Police, Pune Division in Externment Appeal No./ SR/86/2026 are hereby quashed and set aside.
b. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 538 of 2026 is disposed of.