Mukesh S/O Ishwar Chandekar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Sub Division Police Officer

The petitioner was externed for six months from entire Chandrapur District under Section 56(a)(b)(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, by respondent No.3 by order dated 09/01/2026 which was confirmed by respondent No.4 by order dated 13/04/2026.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the externing authority has not applied its mind before passing the order. There is no subjective satisfaction arrived by the externing authority, as could be gathered from the order. Though it is shown that 6 offences are registered against the applicant, however, out of 2 offences registered in the year 2025, one offence is Non-Cognizable Report (NCR). She further

¶27

PIYUSH MAHAJAN

Judgment

Cr.WP-319-2026

3

submits that, so far as Crime No.258/2025 which is registered under Sections 303(2) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are concerned, the same does not have any nexus with the order of externment, and therefore, according to the petitioner, live link is snapped. Even the notice issued under Section 59 does not incorporate the gist of allegations made in in-camera statements, and therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived from replying to the same. She further submits that, it amounts to denial of opportunity, therefore, according to her, the entire order is bad in law.

¶32

On the other hand the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that the petitioner is history-sheeter, and therefore, the Authorities have started proceedings under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. He further submits that there are 4 cognizable offences registered against the applicant in the year 2024. The applicant is a sand

PIYUSH MAHAJAN

Judgment

Cr.WP-319-2026

4

mafia and repeated acts are committed by him, which could be gathered from his criminal history. He further submits that, one crime was registered on 09/12/2024, i.e., Crime No.833/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 189(2), 189(4) and 190 of BNS. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. submits that, considering the criminal history of the applicant, the externing authority thought it fit to extern the petitioner. He further submits that subjective satisfaction is based on the crimes committed by the petitioner as well as the in-camera statements as no one was willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner has become a hazard. The learned A.P.P. submits that, due to the activity of the petitioner, the balance in the vicinity has been disturbed, and therefore, the persons like petitioner does not deserve any leniency, as he is not a law abiding citizen, and therefore, according to the learned A.P.P. the authority is justified in passing the order. He further submits that, the order has been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner was

PIYUSH MAHAJAN

Judgment

Cr.WP-319-2026

5

externed only for six months, and therefore, it cannot be said that, the Authority has not applied its mind, and therefore, considering this fact, the learned A.P.P. prayed to reject the petition.

¶43

I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed on 09/01/2026. It further appears from the record that, the last crime was committed by the petitioner on 14/04/2025. Thereafter, one non-cognizable offence was registered on 10/08/2025. So far as the non-cognizable offence is concerned, that would not fall under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The offence was registered on 14/04/2025, and externment order was passed on 09/01/2026, i.e., almost after 9 months. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the live link between the date of last offence and the passing of the externment order is snapped.

PIYUSH MAHAJAN

Judgment

Cr.WP-319-2026

6

So far as another ground is concerned, regarding compliance of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, it could be gathered that, though the notice under Section 59 was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, however, the said notice does not reflect the gist of the incamera statements recorded by the sponsoring authority. It appears that, the in-camera statements of A and B have been recorded by the sponsoring authority and while serving the notice on the petitioner, there is no mention of the same. Therefore, under such circumstances, it could be safely said that the petitioner was not aware about recording of in-camera statements, and therefore, the petitioner could not get an opportunity to explain or to file reply to counter the statements recorded of A and B and the allegations made there under. Section 59 is an important stage, wherein the proposed externee is having right to file his/her reply or say. Not only that, Section 59 states that the gist of the material allegations are necessary to be informed to the petitioner. In the absence of

PIYUSH MAHAJAN

Judgment

Cr.WP-319-2026

7

compliance of Section 59, the entire proceedings under Section 56 is vitiated. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that,

¶54

even the Divisional Commissioner has not taken into consideration this fact and conveniently ignored it. Therefore, both the impugned orders cannot sustain in law. Hence, the following order:-

¶55

O R D E R

¶56

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;

¶57

(ii) The impugned order dated 13/04/2026 passed

¶58

by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, in Appeal No.35/2026 and impugned order dated 09/01/2026

¶59

passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Warora, in Case No.23/56(a)(b)(1)/2025, are hereby quashed and set aside;

¶60

(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶61

[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]

¶62

PIYUSH MAHAJAN

Mukesh S/O Ishwar Chandekar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Sub Division Police Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh S/O Ishwar Chandekar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Sub Division Police Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sayed Rahat Ali @ Talkya S/O Sayed Ajmat Ali vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Kalamb Dist Yavatmal

Rahul S/O Raju Jadhao vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Frezarpura Amravati Tah and Dist Amravati

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

Chintaman S/O. Hari Mehar vs Assistant Conservator of Forest and Authorized Officer

Shubham @ Pramod Misal vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Tamgaon, Dist. Buldhana

Rekish S/O Rajkumar Wandile (in Jail) vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Lakadganjm Dist. Nagpur