Yogesh Suresh Lanjewar and Another vs State of Maharashtra Throuth Deputy Commissioner of Police and Others

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6132

¶2

38.cri.wp.81.2026.odt

¶3

1

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 81 OF 2026

¶6

Yogesh s/o Suresh Lanjewar, aged about 25 years, Occ. Labour, R/o c/o Ankush Meshram, Plot No.195, Kamgar Colony, Near Buddha Vihar, Subhash Nagar, Rana Pratap Nagar, Nagpur – 440 022.

¶7

Ganesh s/o Omprakash Gadekar, aged about 25 years, Occ. Labour r/o House No. 162, Tukdoji Nagar, Subhash Nagar, Hingna Road, Someshwar Mandir, Nagpur 440 022

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

State of Maharashtra. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Sub Division -1, Dist. Nagpur.

¶11

Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Police Station

¶13

Ranapratap Nagar, Ranapratap Nagar, Nagpur.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

_____________________________________________________________ Shri V.N. Mate, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.A. Madiwale, APP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ______________________________________________________________

¶16

38.cri.wp.81.2026.odt

¶17

2

¶18

CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J . DATE :20.04.2026.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

¶22

By way of the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the externment dated 28.11.2024 passed by respondent no. 1 and the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 in Appeal No.33/2025 mainly on the ground that while externing the petitioners for the maximum period of two years from Nagpur City and Nagpur District, no reasons were assigned.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) 14 SCC 707 , wherein the Supreme Court has considered this issue and held that if the authority is inclined to extern a person for the maximum period provided under Section 58 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (‘the Act of 1951’), on such circumstances, application of mind on the part of the Competant Authority is required to decide the duration of the restraint order under Section 56 the Act of 1951.

¶24

It is further submitted that on the basis of an objective

¶25

38.cri.wp.81.2026.odt

¶26

3

¶27

assessment of the material on record, the authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for that specific period. The order of externment must disclose application of mind and record why it is necessary to pass an order of externment for the maximum period of two years. It is also submitted that the statements recorded by the authority are not specific. Nothing specific is stated regarding the petitioners, there are mere general allegations. Therefore, the impugned orders do not satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court and are bad in law and therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders.

¶28

On the other hand, learned APP opposes the petition by submitting that considering the activities of the petitioners, the authority has rightly passed the orders under Section 55 of the Act of 1951 , which deals with the dispersal of gangs. The Petitioner, along with others, formed a gang and created havoc in the vicinity. Furthermore, the petitioners are accused in Crime No. 44 of 2024, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 394, 307, 427, and 504 of the IPC. Considering this material, the Externing Authority was justified in externing the Petitioners for two years. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. In view of this, this Court may not

¶29

38.cri.wp.81.2026.odt

¶30

4

¶31

disturb the findings and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶32

I have considered the rival submission and perused the record and impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) in paragraph 15 has observed as under :

¶33

“15. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus:

¶34

“58. Period of operation of orders under section 55, 56, 57 and 57A - A direction made under section 55, 56,57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or such area and any District or Districts, or any part thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed a period of two years from the date on which the person removes himself or is removed from the area, District or Districts or part aforesaid or from the specified area or areas as the case may be".

¶35

On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the

¶36

38.cri.wp.81.2026.odt

¶37

5

¶38

necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15th December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of the respondent no.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. ”

¶39

After perusal of the observations of the Supreme Court in the abovesaid case, it is crystal clear that before imposing the maximum punishment provided under Section 58 of the Act of 1951, it is incumbent upon the externing authority to apply its mind to the material placed before it. The order must specifically record the subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years. In the present case, it appears from the impugned order that there is no such subjective satisfaction recorded, nor does it show the necessity for the maximum duration. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the orders are unsustainable. Hence, the following order:

¶40

(a) The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶41

38.cri.wp.81.2026.odt

¶42

6

¶43

(b) The impugned common order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 and order dated 27.10.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶44

The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made

¶45

absolute in above terms.

¶46

(M.M. NERLIKAR, J . )

¶47

Trupti

¶48

Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/04/2026 17:28:26

Yogesh Suresh Lanjewar and Another v. State of Maharashtra Throuth Deputy Commissioner of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Suresh Lanjewar and Another v. State of Maharashtra Throuth Deputy Commissioner of Police and Others

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

Pranay S/O Vivekanand Nikhade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Pachpaoli Police Station Nagpur and Anr.

Vijaysingh S/O Ramsingh Sakhala vs State of Maharashtra Thr A.G.P. and P.P. Mehkar for Pso Mehkar Dist. Buldhana

Prashik Bhaskar Chahande vs Divisional Commissioner Revenue

Dipak S/O Vishnu Pise vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Parwa Ps, Dist. Yavatmal and Anr.

Dhanraj Divakar @ Dilip Gayakwad vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso,M Digras Ps, Tah Digras Dist. Yavatmal and Anr.