TARZEN ALIAS BALLU ARUN DAHEKARversusTHE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK DIVISION NASHIK AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:1060

                                          1                       910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                      CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1772 OF 2025

                     TARZEN ALIAS BALLU ARUN DAHEKAR
                                  VERSUS
               THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK DIVISION
                           NASHIK AND ANOTHER

                                         …
                    Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kothari Pratik P.

                    APP for Respondents/State : Mr. P. D. Patil
                                       …

                                       CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
                                          DATE : 8th JANUARY, 2026

              PER COURT :
              1.       Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Kothari
              and the learned APP Mr. Patil for the State.


              2.       The Petitioner has filed the present petition thereby praying
              for quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.11.2025 passed by
              the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik rejecting Appeal No.67/2025
              and confirming the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Externing
              Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon.


              3.       The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Kothari submits
              that stale offences are taken into consideration, for passing the order
              of externment and as such, there is no live link between the offences
                               2                   910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




and any immediate threat, alarm, or danger to public order.
.         It is further argued by the learned Counsel Mr. Kothari that
the provision of Section 55 contemplates issuance of externment
order in favour of all the members of the gang. The FIR as mentioned
in the tabular chart in the order, specifically names several other
accused persons along with the Petitioner, however the Petitioner is
chosen to be externed by exercising powers under Section 55 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. The said act on the part of the Respondents
is illegal and is liable to be set aside.


4.        The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that out of
seven offences mentioned in the order, the Petitioner has been
acquitted in four of the offences and as such the Externing Authority
has failed to take into consideration the fact of acquittal while
passing the externment order. Thus, the impugned order passed by
the Externing Authority on 13.08.2025 is liable to be set aside, as the
same reflects non-application of mind by the Externing Authority.


5.        The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Kothari submits
that the Divisional Commissioner i.e. Appellate Authority has also
failed to apply its mind to the fact that only the Petitioner has been
externed out of the gang members shown in the offences considered
for externing the Petitioner. Moreover the Petitioner is externed for a
period of one year without any consideration as to the period for
which the Petitioner shall be necessarily externed for maintenance of
the public order in the vicinity.
                              3                     910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




6.           It is further submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. Kothari
that some of the offences in the chart have been wrongly included,
wherein the Petitioner was not even shown as an accused,
particularly in offence nos. 318/2008 and 336/2008. This fact,
therefore, demonstrates total non-application of mind by the
Externing Authority. The fundamental rights of the Petitioner
pertaining to personal liberty have been flouted and blatantly
violated by not conforming to the procedural safeguards prescribed
under the law. The impugned order may therefore be quashed and
set aside.


7.           The learned APP submits that the Petitioner is a history-
sheeter, having several offences registered against him. The Petitioner
is shown to be one of the members of the gang led by Akash Dahekar.
The said accused/Akash Dahekar, who is the gang leader, has also
been externed along with the Petitioner, and as such, there is no
substance in the argument that only the Petitioner was singled out
for externment from the entire gang.
.            It is further submitted by the learned APP that the
Externment Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that
the activities of the Petitioner have caused alarm and danger to
public order in the city of Jalgaon, wherein several offences are
registered against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is added as an
accused in one of the recent offences in the year 2025 which is
registered as Crime No.321/2025 at MIDC Police Station. Thus there
is a live link between the last reported offence and the externment
                            4                       910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




order as the said offence being Crime No.321/2025 is registered on
02.05.2025 and the Petitioner was externed on 13.08.2025. There
are several steps to be undertaken by the authorities before finally
passing an order of externment of a gang by exercising powers under
Section 55. Thus, there is hardly any delay in the passing of the
externment order, and there is no snapping of the live link between
the criminal activities of the Petitioner and the externment order.


8.       It is further submitted by the learned APP Mr. Patil that the
Appellate Authority has also considered in detail the submissions
made by the Petitioner and therefore did not consider the offences in
which the Petitioner was acquitted and has considered only the
offences wherein the Petitioner’s role has been clearly made out. The
offences registered against the Petitioner fall under Chapters XVI and
XVII of the IPC and as such the Petitioner has been rightly externed
from the city of Jalgaon.
.        It is further submitted by Mr. Patil learned APP that the
learned Divisional Commissioner has also considered that the
offences i.e. Crime Nos. 320/2022 and 321/2022 are still pending.
The four offences under which the Petitioner has been acquitted,
have not been considered and as such there is no error in the order
passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner and the learned
Divisional Commissioner has rightly maintained the order of
externment passed by the Externing Authority. There is no substance
in the petition and thus the same may be dismissed.
                               5                          910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




9.        I have considered the submissions made by the learned
Counsel Mr. Kothari for the Petitioner. Mr. Kothari has relied upon by
the judgment in the case of Vinod s/o Raju Tejwal Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others passed by the Divisional Bench of the
Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench dated 28.10.2021 in Criminal
Writ Petition No.650/2021. The learned Counsel Mr. Kothari further
relied upon the judgment of the Single Bench of the Bombay High
Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Mohammad Bin Saeed Bin
Kileb and Ors. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division
and Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No.892/2022 dated 29.08.2022, to
buttress the submission that Section 55 nowhere gives discretion to
the competent authority to have a selective approach. Both the
judgments are relied upon by Mr. Kothari to show that the authorities
cannot select only few members of the gang to be externed. There
are several other persons in the gang who are not externed and as
such taking into consideration the above judgments, the impugned
order shall be quashed.
.         I have carefully perused the above said two judgments. The
paragraph No.14 of the judgment in the case of Mohammad Bin
Saeed Bin Kileb (supra) reads as under :
     14. Section 55 nowhere gives discretion to the competent authority to
     have a selective approach. In the present case, as discussed earlier, the
     externment proceedings was initiated against in all six persons
     including petitioner no.1 being chief of the gang and petitioner no.2
     being member of the gang. However, externment proceedings came to
     be dropped against four members of the gang and externment order
     came to be passed against the present petitioners under Section 55 of
     the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Certainly, it is a selective approach
                               6                         910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




      of the competent authority. It is not permissible in view of the
      decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Vinod s/o Raju
      Tejwal (supra). Certainly, the impugned order is defective in the eye
      of law and liable to be quashed and set aside.


10.        The aforesaid observations would show that the externment
proceedings was initiated against six members and came to be
dropped against four members of the gang and then the externment
order passed only against the Petitioners therein under Section 55 of
the Act by the Externing Authority in the said case.
.          In the present case, both the members of the gang i.e. Akash
Dahekar and the present Petitioner are externed by passing an order
under Section 55. Akash Dahekar is shown as a gang leader whereas
the Petitioner is shown as a member of the gang. Thus in the present
case, the proceedings were not dropped against any other proposed
externiee. The proceeding itself was initiated only against two
accused and both of them are externed. Hence the ratio of the above
judgments would not apply.


11.        Insofar as the judgment in the case of Vinod Raju Tejwal
(supra) is concerned, the observations made by the Hon’ble Division
Bench was on a consideration that only the Petitioner therein, was
externed amongst the other members of the gang and therefore
impugned orders of externment were quashed and set aside on the
selective approach of the competent authorities for passing an order
under Section 55 for removal of the gang.
.          In the present case as stated earlier both the members of the
                            7                       910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




gang are externed. Akash Dahekar is shown as a gang leader and the
Petitioner is shown as a member of the gang and as such the ratio of
the above judgments also would not apply to the facts of the present
case. The impugned order shows the consideration of the criminal
activities of the present Petitioner, which created alarm and posed a
danger to the peace and tranquility of the area, as well as an
apprehension that the Petitioner may again indulge in identical
bodily offences falling under Chapters XVI and XVII of the IPC. Upon
such subjective satisfaction, the externment order came to be passed
by the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon. The inclusion of the
offences in which the Petitioner is acquitted is only to show the
criminal tendency of the Petitioner. The acquittal or conviction of the
Petitioner has no relevance and rather justifies the case of the police
authorities in externing the Petitioner who has continuously engaged
in the criminal offences falling under Chapters XVI and XVII of the
IPC. Thus, I find no infirmity in the externment order.



12.      Insofar as the appellate order passed by the learned
Divisional Commissioner is concerned, the Divisional Commissioner
has considered in detail all the offences against the Petitioner. It is
specifically observed by the learned Divisional Commissioner that out
of the seven criminal offences and three chapter cases relied upon by
the competent authority to extern the Petitioner, the Petitioner has
been acquitted of four offences. Hence, the aforesaid four acquitted
cases and three chapter cases were not considered by the Appellate
                           8                       910.Cri.WP-1772-2025.doc




Authority. The Divisional Commissioner also observed that the
Externment Authority had arrived at subjective satisfaction to remove
the members of the gang, as there was every likelihood that they may
endanger public order. The Divisional Commissioner further noted
the offence committed by the Petitioner registered as Crime No.
321/2025 on 02.05.2025 and the proposal initiated by the concerned
Police Inspector on 03.07.2025, thereby showing that there is a live
link. The said observations of the learned Divisional Commissioner
therefore clearly show application of mind by the Appellate Authority
to the externment order. I therefore, do not find any substance and
merits in the present writ petition. The Criminal Writ Petition stands
dismissed.



                                           MEHROZ K. PATHAN
                                               JUDGE




NAJEEB.