Shailesh S/O Kishor Madewar v. the State of Maharashtra through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sakkardara Division, Nagpur City

Bombay HC10 Apr 2026WP/280/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, Crl. W.P. No.280/2026, decided 24.04.2026 (M.M. Nerlikar, J.) — externment; S.56(1)(bb) Maharashtra Police Act 1951; S.2(a)(iv) Act of 1980; NDPS offences; only one of seven cases punishable beyond seven years; Aamna Bi Shiekh Pir Mohd. Sheikh 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 3193 relied on; externment and appellate orders quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition allowed; the externment order dated 02.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Nagpur City, and the confirming order dated 25.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3, Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, quashed and set aside; rule made absolute; pending applications disposed of. ¶¶66

Shailesh S/O Kishor Madewar vs the State of Maharashtra… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's externment under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was lawful when the offences alleged against him did not satisfy the requirement of Section 2(a)(iv) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 that there be more than one offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more.

¶¶24

Court's answer

Under Section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980, offences which are not punishable with imprisonment extending to seven years or more cannot be considered; the word 'offences' demonstrates that there must be more than one offence committed by the externee for which the maximum punishment prescribed is death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

On the record, seven crimes stood registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act; for all except Crime No.57/2023 the punishment provided is up to one year only, and only Crime No.57/2023 carries punishment up to ten years.

¶¶59

Key takeaways

Consequently, there was no compliance with Section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980 so as to justify invoking Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against the petitioner.ratio¶¶59
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 miserably failed to take this fact into consideration and committed gross error in passing the externment order; the petition succeeds.ratio¶¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Externment under S.56(1)(bb), Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 read with S.2(a)(iv), Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 ('Act of 1980') requires more than one offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more. Of the seven NDPS cases against the petitioner, all except Crime No.57/2023 (S.8(C), 20(b)(ii) NDPS) attracted punishment up to one year; only Crime No.57/2023 carried punishment up to ten years. The DCP Zone-4 externment order dated 02.02.2026 and the Divisional Commissioner's confirming order dated 25.03.2026 were quashed and set aside; petition allowed (M.M. Nerlikar, J.), following/relying on Aamna Bi Shiekh Pir Mohd. Sheikh, 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 3193.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6532

¶2

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 280 OF 2026

¶6

1. Shailesh s/o Kishor Madewar

¶7

Aged about 40 years, Occupation :Private Work, R/o Plot No.16, Sonzhari Nagar, Solamkiwadi, Near Shitla Mata Mandir, Old Bidipeth,

¶8

Nagpur (At Present Externee)

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

// V E R S U S //

¶11

State of Maharashtra, Through Assistant Commissioner Police, Sakkardara Division, Nagpur City, Nagpur

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Nagpur City, Nagpur

¶14

Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur

¶15

Mr. N.K. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondents/State.

¶16

¶17

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

¶18

DATE:24.04.2026 O R A L J U D G M E N T :

¶19

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶20

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶21

¶22

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Nagpur City, Nagpur and order dated 25.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3-Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur wherein the petitioner was externed for six months from entire Nagpur District.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ground for externing the petitioner are the offences referred to in the chart at page No.27. He invited my attention to the definition provided in Section 2(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti Social and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 (for short, ‘ the Act of 1980’), which defines “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” specifically Section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980 and submitted that it relates to the offences which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment of term extending to seven years or more. He submits that so far as chart at page 27 of the petition is concerned,

¶25

all the offences which are shown against the petitioner are

¶26

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶27

¶28

punishable for imprisonment up to one year and the only offence i.e. crime No.57/2023 which is registered under Section 8 (C) and 20(b) (ii) of NDPS is punishable up to 10 years. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it does not satisfy section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Aamna Bi Shiekh Pir Mohd. Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 3193 .

¶29

On the other hand, the learned APP opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner is a habitual criminal indulging in narcotic drugs. He submits that if a cumulative effect is given to the acts of the petitioner, then it can be said that the activities of the petitioner are disturbing or is likely to disturb public order under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and therefore, learned APP submits that after applying the mind and after arriving at subjective satisfaction, the respondent No.2 has passed the order. He further submits that in an appeal filed under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur has also confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,

¶30

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶31

¶32

Zone-4, Nagpur City, Nagpur. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and same deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

6. I have considered the rival submissions.

¶34

Section 56(1)(bb) reads as under:-

¶35

56.Removal of persons about to commit offence. — [(1)] Whenever it shall appear in [Brihan Mumbai] and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf

¶36

[(bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance or supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 or,”

¶37

It is further useful to refer to the definition under Section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980 which reads as under:-

¶38

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶39

¶40

“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

¶41

(a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order means

¶42

(iv) committing offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more, where the commission of such offences disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public order.”

¶43

This Court in the case of Aamna Bi Shiekh Pir Mohd.

¶44

Sheikh (supra) has specifically interpreted Section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980 which would demonstrate that the offences which are not punishable up to seven years or more, those offences cannot be considered. It is further to be noted that word “offences” used in Section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980 would demonstrate that there should be more than one offence committed by externee where maximum punishment prescribed is of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for term extending seven years or more. Paragraph No.3 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant which reads as under:-

¶45

“3. Section 2(a) of the Anti Social Act, defines the expression “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. In the instance case, the definition as given under

¶46

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶47

¶48

Clause (iv) of Section 2(a) is relevant and it is reproduced as under:-

¶49

Section 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶50

(a) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order means-

(i)..........

(ii)........

(iii).........

A bare reading of clause (iv) reproduced above, would be sufficient for us to know what is contemplated under this definition. It is an activity which is continuous in nature and not something that is an isolated or a singular activity. This is obvious from the use of plural form of noun offence. The noun is employed as “offences”. That would mean that there should be at-least more than one offence committed by the proposed externee for which the maximum punishment prescribed is of death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to 7 years or more. In addition to this requirement of law, other ingredient of the

¶56

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶57

¶58

definition is that the offences registered against the externee must be of such nature as to be when committed would enable the authority to form an opinion that the commission thereof is likely to disturb or would disturb the public order. But, the latter ingredient would come into picture only after first part of the definition that is the commission of more than one offence having prescribed punishment as mentioned in this clause is completed. If first ingredient is not fulfilled, there would be no need for the authority to consider the other factor relating to disturbance of the public order”.

¶59

So far as the present case is concerned, admittedly, it appears from the record that total seven crimes are registered against the present petitioner under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Except one offence i.e. crime No.57/2023 for all other offences, the punishment provided is up to one year only. It is only Crime No. 57/2023, wherein the punishment provided is up to 10 years. Therefore, considering this fact, in my opinion, there is no compliance of Section 2(a)(iv) of the Act of 1980 in order to invoke Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶60

37 cr wp 280.26.odt..odt

¶61

¶62

Under such circumstances, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have miserably failed to take into consideration this fact and therefore, committed gross error by passing the order of externment against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petition succeeds. Hence I proceed to pass the following order:-

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.

¶65

(ii) The impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed by

¶66

respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-4, Nagpur City, Nagpur and order dated 25.03.2026 passed by respondent No.3 -Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur are quashed and set aside.

¶67

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶68

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶69

manisha

¶70

Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/04/2026 12:47:02

Shailesh S/O Kishor Madewar v. the State of Maharashtra through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sakkardara Division, Nagpur City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh S/O Kishor Madewar v. the State of Maharashtra through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sakkardara Division, Nagpur City

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uday S/O Chandrashekhar Balapure vs Kuber Corporation a Partnership Fir Thr Its Partner Satynarayan Gokulchandji Zawar

Sonam W/O Rajesh Khaparde vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Sakkardara

Vaibhav S/O Ramdas Paulzagade vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Nandura, Tq. Nandura Dist. Buldhana

Rakesh S/O Ramkishor Khurana vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kelwad (Nagpur Rular ) and Economic Offenses With Nagpur

Krishna S/O Aadku Kumre vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Pendhari, Tah. Dhanora, Dist. Gadchiroli

Vaibhav S/O Ramdas Paulzagade vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Nandura, Tq. Nandura Dist. Buldhana