Allowed¶33

Madurai @ Madra Mariappan Devendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2026WP/833/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Externment; Maharashtra Police Act 1951 S. 56(1)(a)(b); S. 56 show cause notice; repeat externment on same material after quashing of earlier order; stale offences; live link; confidential witnesses; non-application of mind; extraneous material; C.R. No. 960 of 2024; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Ss. 109, 352, 3(5); Maharashtra Police Act Ss. 37(1), 135; Criminal Writ Petition No. 732 of 2025; quashed and set aside; Bombay High Court; N. J. Jamadar J.; Madurai @ Madra Mariappan Devendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Police.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned externment order dated 29th January 2026 quashed and set aside. ¶33

Madurai @ Madra Mariappan Devendra vs Deputy Commissioner of Police and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned externment order dated 29th January 2026 quashed and set aside.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the fresh externment order dated 29th January 2026 could validly be passed by Respondent No.1 on the basis of the very same crimes and material on which the earlier externment order dated 16th May 2024 had already been quashed and set aside by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.732 of 2025. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

In passing the impugned externment order, the competent authority took into account the very crimes which were already noted and commented upon by this Court when it quashed the earlier externment order dated 16th May 2024 — offences registered prior to 2013 having been found stale and without any live link to the externment measure.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The mere fact that a subsequent crime (C.R. No. 960 of 2024) came to be registered against the Petitioner does not dilute the weight of the reasons recorded by this Court in quashing the earlier externment order, nor the sanctity of that order.

¶30

Key takeaways

The impugned externment order suffers from clear non-application of mind, being founded on consideration of material which this Court has declared extraneous for the purpose of passing an order of externment, and therefore cannot be sustained.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) — Externment under S. 56(1)(a) and (b), Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — Fresh externment order dated 29.01.2026 externing the petitioner for one year from Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts passed on the self-same crimes and material on the basis of which an earlier externment order dated 16.05.2024 had already been quashed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.732 of 2025 (order dated 04.03.2025) — In the earlier order the offences registered prior to 2013 were held stale, several CR Nos. relied upon were not mentioned in the show cause notice, and no live link with the externment measure was established — Subsequent registration of C.R. No. 960 of 2024 (Ss. 109, 352, 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Ss. 37(1) and 135 Maharashtra Police Act, 1951) does not dilute the weight of the reasons recorded by this Court or the sanctity of its earlier order — Impugned order suffers from clear non-application of mind, resting on material declared extraneous — Impugned order quashed and set aside; petition allowed (N. J. Jamadar, J.).

¶1

17-WP-833-2026.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 833 OF 2026

¶5

Madurai @ Madra Mariappan Devendra ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Police And Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rahul Arote a/w Tanvi Mahadik and Nikita Gawai, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. P. P. Malshe, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 05^th MARCH 2026

¶9

ORAL ORDER:

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶11

The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 29^th January

¶12

2026, whereby the Petitioner has been externed from the limits of Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts for a period of one year under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IX, served a show cause notice on the Petitioner under Section 56 of the Act, 1951 adverting to the crimes registered against the Petitioner and the statements of confidential witnesses recorded by the police. It was inter alia alleged that the acts and conduct of the Petitioner were causing

¶14

1/4

¶15

Ajit

¶16

17-WP-833-2026.DOC

¶17

alarm and that to restrain the Petitioner from indulging in offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was necessary to extern the Petitioner. Eventually, by the impugned order, the Petitioner was externed for a period of one year from Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts.

¶18

The Petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction contending that the externment order dated 16^th May 2024 passed by Respondent No.1 on the basis of the self-same material was quashed and set aside by this Court by an order dated 4^th March 2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.732 of 2025. Respondent No.1 has again initiated the action for externment on the strength of the very same material. Once this Court had quashed and set aside the earlier order of externment by recording reasons, it was not open for Respondent No.1 to again take into account those very crimes registered against the Petitioner and pass the impugned order.

¶19

The learned APP made an endeavor to support the impugned order. It was submitted that, in addition to the aforesaid crimes, C.R. No. 960 of 2024 was registered against the Petitioner on 12^th October 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Therefore, Respondent No.1 was justified in initiating the measure of externment.

¶20

2/4

¶21

Ajit

¶22

17-WP-833-2026.DOC

¶23

In Criminal Writ Petition No.732 of 2025, this Court, after extracting the crimes registered against the Petitioner, excluding C.R. No. 960 of 2024, which came to be registered against the Petitioner after the passing of the earlier order of externment dated 16^th May 2024, observed as under:

¶24

“7. Out of these offences, in the case listed at Serial No.3 above, the petitioner remained in custody from 2014 to 2019 before being released on bail by this Court pending appeal against conviction. Between 2019 and the issuance of the show cause notice, only the offences at Serial Nos.1 and 2 were registered, both of which were under investigation. The offences at Serial Nos.4 to 8 and 10 to 12, registered between 1994 and 2013, are stale offences. Additionally, the petitioner was acquitted in the offence listed at Serial No.9. Before passing the externment order, the authorities relied upon CR Nos.229/2008 (registered at Santacruz Police Station), 156/2008, 531/1999, 410/1997, 418/1996, 280/1994, 374/1993 and 104/1990 (registered at Juhu Police Station), none of which were mentioned in the show cause notice. Moreover, the records do not establish any live link between these offences and the externment order.”

¶25

In the impugned order, the competent authority has taken into account the crimes which were already noted and commented upon by this Court in the impugned order. This Court had recorded that the offences registered prior to 2013 were stale offences and there was no live link between the offences, which were taken into account by the

¶26

3/4

¶27

Ajit

¶28

17-WP-833-2026.DOC

¶29

competent authority in passing the order dated 16^th May 2024 and the measure of externment.

¶30

The mere fact that subsequently another crime came to be registered against the Petitioner does not dilute the weight of the reasons recorded by this Court or the sanctity of the order passed by this Court. The impugned order suffers from clear non-application of mind and consideration of the material which has been declared by this Court to be extraneous for the purpose of passing the order of externment. Resultantly, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶31

Hence, the following order:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 29^th January 2026 stands quashed and set aside.

¶34

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶35

4/4

¶36

Ajit

Madurai @ Madra Mariappan Devendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madurai @ Madra Mariappan Devendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Anr.

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

Similar cases

M/S. Shah Surfaces LLP vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Pooja Ranjit Bhujbal and Ors. vs Narayan Shankar Khunte and Ors.

Siddharth Ankathil vs Radius Estates and Developers Private Limited

Sunil N. Shah ( H. U.F. ) Thr. Its Karta Sunil Narayandas vs the Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd.

Nadaraja Deepika vs Hella Infra Market Retail Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Zuber Ahmed Mohmmed Islam Ansari vs Vijaykant Sagar and Ors.