Ganesh Namdeo Bhoir vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Heard Mr Niranjan Mundargi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Dr Ashwini Takalkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State.

¶20

By the impugned externment order dated 14 September 2022, respondent No.3 prohibited the petitioner from Kalyan, Bhiwandi, Murbad, Ulhasnagar, Shahpur, and Ambernath talukas of Thane district for a period of eighteen months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an externment appeal bearing No.131 of 2022 under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (‘the Act’) before the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai. On 31 January 2024, after evaluating the material available on record, the appellate authority declined to interfere with the

¶21

Page No. 2 of 10 ____________________________________________ 27 March 2025

¶22

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶23

externment order.

¶24

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 21 January 2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act, relying upon five crime reports. However, respondent No.3 rejected the proposal on 24 August 2021, finding that the cases relied upon were civil land disputes amongst family members, and, therefore, the action of externing the petitioner was deemed inappropriate. It was, however, noted that a fresh proposal for externment could be presented if new offences were registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 11 March 2022, a fresh proposal for externing the petitioner was initiated, referencing the prior rejection of the externment proceedings dated 24 August 2021. Surprisingly, a second proposal for the petitioner’s externment was initiated on 12 March 2022, which omitted any mention of the earlier cancellation of the proposal. The second proposal was remained entirely silent regarding the status or outcome of the proposal dated 11 March 2022. This second proposal also introduced new material in addition to that presented in the earlier proceedings. While the material relied upon

¶25

Page No. 3 of 10 ____________________________________________ 27 March 2025

¶26

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶27

during the previous proceedings, which was rejected on 24 August 2021, consisted of cases arising solely from land disputes between the family members, the second proposal included two additional crime reports registered as CR Nos.84 of 2022 and 346 of 2021. However, these new reports were again rooted in the family disputes, and the investigation revealed that the petitioner had no involvement in either of the two crimes. The final report for CR No.84 of 2022, accompanied by Form 5-C and the charge sheet, unequivocally established that the petitioner had no connection to the crime. As for CR No.346 of 2021, the facts align with the rationale behind the rejection of the earlier proposal dated 24 August 2021. This crime was registered based on complaint filed by relatives of the petitioner. The FIR does not even mention the presence of the petitioner during the alleged incident on 15 November 2021. Furthermore, in the absence of allegations under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner’s implication can be categorically deemed false. The charge sheet for CR No.346 of 2021 has already been filed, and notably, the charges under the Arms Act have been dropped. This sequence of events underscores the lack of merit in the

¶28

Page No. 4 of 10

¶29

27 March 2025

¶30

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶31

proposals for externment, as they rely upon baseless allegations unsupported by substantive evidence.

¶32

The learned Counsel further submits that the proposal and the impugned orders rely on material that contradicts the observations made in the rejection of the proposal dated 24 August 2021. In addition, one of the chapter cases, case No.04 of 2017, was cited in support of the externment order and in the rejection of the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had executed a good behaviour bond, which had expired after three years. However, this reasoning reflects a lack of proper application of mind, as the petitioner had challenged the chapter proceedings by a revision, and therefore, no such bond was ever executed.

¶33

Mr Mundargi contends that a simple examination of the records clearly reveals a complete lack of application of mind by respondents No.2 and 3 while passing the impugned orders. The material relied upon, which had previously been rejected for the purpose of the petitioner’s externment, has again been used by both the externment authority and the appellate authority. Furthermore, the authorities failed to provide any clarification regarding the

¶34

Page No. 5 of 10

¶35

27 March 2025

¶36

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶37

status or outcome of the proposal dated 11 March 2022, while simultaneously relying on the subsequent proposal dated 12 March 2022. The additional two crime reports, bearing CR Nos.84 of 2022 and 346 of 2021, also stem from a family dispute concerning land property. The appellate authority had stayed the impugned externment order by an order dated 5 July 2023, and the stay was further extended by this Court by its order dated 13 February 2024. In light of these circumstances, the impugned orders have not only become irrelevant due to the lack of application of mind, but also because of the passage of time.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the petitioner’s request by referring to the reasons stated in the impugned orders. The learned APP contends that the overall impact of the externee’s conduct on the local residents, who were subjected to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the petitioner, should be taken into account.

¶39

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the

¶40

Page No. 6 of 10

¶41

27 March 2025

¶42

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶43

records.

¶44

It is a well-established principle in law that orders for externment must strictly comply with the statutory provisions governing them. Externment entails the forced removal of an individual from their home and surroundings, which can have a profound impact on their livelihood and overall well-being. Given the severe consequences of such an action, any externment order must be supported by valid and justifiable reasons. The mere registration of criminal offences against an individual does not, in itself, justify externment under the Act. For an externment order to be legally sustainable, it must be demonstrated that the conduct or behaviour of the individual creates an atmosphere of fear, thereby deterring witnesses from coming forward to testify against them due to concerns for their own safety and the security of their property. The externment is not intended to serve as a punitive measure. Rather, its primary objective is to prevent an individual from continuing their unlawful activities by removing them from an environment that facilitates or encourages such behaviour. By displacing the person from their usual area of operation, externment seeks to curtail their influence and disrupt any criminal

¶45

Page No. 7 of 10

¶46

27 March 2025

¶47

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶48

network they may be associated with. Therefore, establishing a clear and direct connection between the individual’s actions and the necessity for externment is imperative. The decision to extern someone must be based on concrete evidence demonstrating that their continued presence poses a genuine threat to public order and safety, rather than being based on mere suspicion or past offences. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to Sameer s/o Prahalad Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No.508 of 2018 dated 15 December 2022 (Bombay High Court at Nagpur).

¶49

Upon a thorough examination of the records, it is evident that on 21 January 2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner based on five registered criminal cases. However, the proposal for externment was rejected by respondent No.3 on 24 August 2021, with a finding that the cited cases, whether cognisable or non-cognisable, primarily arose from civil land disputes among family members. The records further indicate that a fresh externment proposal was initiated on 11 March 2022, referencing the setting aside of the externment proceedings on 24 August 2021. Subsequently, another proposal was

¶50

Page No. 8 of 10

¶51

27 March 2025

¶52

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶53

introduced on 12 March 2022, this time omitting any reference to the previous cancellation. The proposal dated 12 March 2022 remained entirely silent on the existence of the earlier proposal from 11 March 2022.

¶54

The material used to justify the petitioner’s externment, which had already been rejected on 24 August 2021, was based on land disputes within the family. The only additional evidence cited against the petitioner consisted of two newly registered cases vide CR Nos.84 of 2022 and 346 of 2021 both of which also stemmed from family disputes. This demonstrates a lack of thoughtful consideration in the impugned orders, as the authorities relied on previously rejected grounds for externment without providing any clarification on the status of 11 Mach 2022 proposal. Furthermore, the externment order was stayed by the appellate authority on 5 July 2023, and the stay was extended by this Court on 13 February 2024. Given the passage of time and the authorities’ failure to properly assess the matter, the externment order has lost its relevance. In light of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶55

Page No. 9 of 10

¶56

27 March 2025

¶57

Chitra Sonawane 32-wp-457-2025.doc

¶58