Bombay High Court
MOAHAMMED RAFIQ GULAM RASUL ANSARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court quashed and set aside the externment orders as they were not justified under Section 56 and violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
Summary
The petitioner, Arjun Vitthal, a member of the Social Democratic Party of India, challenged an externment order issued under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 that barred him from several Mumbai districts for 18 months. The order was based on eight offences, many of which were either under investigation or related to political agitations and alleged violations of Section 188 IPC. The court examined whether pending or investigatory offences could be considered for externment and whether the petitioner’s political activities fell within the ambit of Section 56. Relying on precedent that crimes under investigation cannot justify externment and that Section 56 requires a real threat of alarm, danger or harm, the court found no material to support the order. It also held that the externment infringed the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. Consequently, the court quashed both the Deputy Commissioner’s and the Divisional Commissioner’s orders and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether offences that are pending investigation can be taken into account for an externment order under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s participation in political agitations constitutes a ground for externment under Section 56(1)(a) and (b).
- Whether the externment order violates the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 188, 223, 285, 323, 34, 504, 506(2)
- Maharashtra Atrocities Act — s. 3(1), 3(p), 3(q), 3(r), 3(s), 3(u), 3(w), 3(z)
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 56
- Representation of the People Act — s. 29(a)
Subjects
- externment
- Section 56
- Maharashtra Police Act
- political agitation
- fundamental rights
- Articles 19 and 21
- pending investigation
- quash
Judgment
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3068 OF 2026
ARJUN Moahammed Rafiq Gulam Rasul Ansari …Petitioner
VITTHAL Vs.
KUDHEKAR
Digitally signed by 1. State of Maharashtra …Respondents
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Date: 2026.10.03
21:56:59 +0530 Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai
Mr. Imran Sheikh a/w. Ruby Shaikh, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Walve, APP a/w. Shahaji Shinde, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the
for the Respondent No.1-State.
Sr. PI Dattatray Patil a/w. API Sanjay Nikam and PSI Dipali Pawase,
RCF Police Station, Mumbai.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Walve, learned APP for the Respondents.
2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
the order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone 6, Chembur Mumbai in Externment
Case No. 471 of 2025 and order dated 21 st May 2026 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal No.
Page 1 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
180 of 2025. By the impugned order dated 3 rd December 2025,
the Petitioner has been externed by exercising powers under
Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 for a period of 18
months from the areas of Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Belapur
and Panvel District.
3. It is the submission of Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is belonging to Social
Democratic Party of India which is registered with the Election
Commission under Section 29(a) of the Representation of People’s
Act as a political party and the Petitioner is a member of said
political party. He submits that the show cause notice is issued on
the basis of eight offences registered against the Petitioner. He
submits that except the offence bearing C.R. No.53 of 2024
registered with R.C.F. Police Station, the other offences are
concerning the participation of the Petitioner concerning
agitation/morchas/dharnas organized by the said Social
Democratic Party of India with respect to various issues. He
further submits that as far as the two offences bearing C.R. No.
180 of 2022 and C.R. No. 457 of 2025 and one NC are under
Page 2 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
investigation and therefore the same could not have been taken
into consideration while passing the order of externment.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Walve, learned APP submits that
there are total eight offences registered against the Petitioner.
Apart from that, there is one NC and, therefore, the order of
externment is rightly passed.
5. Perusal of the record shows that while passing the order of
externment dated 3rd December 2025, the following eight cases are
taken into consideration :-
Court
Police
Sr. Date of Case Present
Statio Sections
No. Incident No. & Status
n
Date
C.R. No. 383/2019 –
Section 188 IPC read 1183/ Pending
1 R.C.F. with Sections 37(1), 11/12/2019 PS/ before
135 of the Maharashtra 2020 Court
Police Act
C.R. No. 424/2020 –
Sections 269, 270 IPC 2872/ Pending
2 R.C.F. read with Sections 06/12/2020 PS/ before
37(1), 135 of the 2021 Court
Maharashtra Police Act
C.R. No. 619/2021 –
Section 188 IPC read 7606/ Pending
3 R.C.F. with Sections 37(1), 29/10/2021 PS/ before
37(3), 135 of the 2022 Court
Maharashtra Police Act
Page 3 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
Court
Police
Sr. Date of Case Present
Statio Sections
No. Incident No. & Status
n
Date
C.R. No. 354/2022 –
Section 188 IPC read 8239/ Pending
4 R.C.F. with Sections 37(3), 17/05/2022 PS/ before
135 of the Maharashtra 2022 Court
Police Act
C.R. No. 53/2024 –
Sections 323, 504,
0542/ Pending
506(2), 34 IPC read
5 R.C.F. 18/01/2024 SPL/ before
with Section 3(1),(q),
2024 Court
(r),(s),(u),(z),(w),(p) of
the Atrocity Act
C.R. No. 636/2024 –
Sections 223, 3(5) BNS 6115/ Pending
6 R.C.F. read with Sections 06/12/2024 PS/ before
37(3), 135 of the 2025 Court
Maharashtra Police Act
C.R. No. 180/2025 –
Section 223 BNS read Investigat
7 R.C.F. with Sections 37(3), 02/04/2025 — ion in
135 of the Maharashtra progress
Police Act
C.R. No. 459/2025 –
Sections 223, 285 BNS Investigat
8 R.C.F. read with Sections 21/08/2025 — ion in
37(3), 135 of the progress
Maharashtra Police Act
6. Perusal of the above chart clearly shows that as far as C.R.
No. 180 of 2025 and C.R. No.459 of 2025 are concerned they were
under investigation and, therefore, could not have been taken into
consideration.
Page 4 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
7. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Imtiyaz
Hussain Sayyad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1 has held that
it is trite that the crimes under investigation cannot be taken into
consideration as depending upon the outcome of the investigation,
the investigating agency may or may not send the accused for trial.
Thus, the last two offences which were registered on 2nd April
2024 and 21st August 2025, respectively, could not have been taken
into consideration while passing the externment order.
8. In view of above, it is required to be noted that the show
cause notice has been issued on 20th October 2025. The offences in
which charge-sheet is filed and is mentioned in the show cause
notice are of the years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2024.
Therefore, there is no live link between these offences and the
action of externment.
9. Apart from that, it is required to be noted that the offences
which are mentioned in the above chart at Sr. No. 1 to 4 and 6 are
concerning participation of the Petitioner in
agitation/morchas/dharnas which were organized by the said
1 Criminal Writ Petition No. 2805 of 2023 dt. 19 th January 2024
Page 5 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
Social Democratic Party of India with respect to certain decisions of
the Central Government.
10. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has
relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Saeed Ahmad
Abdul Wahid Chaudhary Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2.
The paragraph Nos. 5 to 16 of the said decision are relevant and
reproduced hereinbelow :
“5. It is an admitted position that, the Petitioner in his
capacity as the Secretary of the Social Democratic Party
of India, has arranged agitations/morchas/dharnas with
respect to the certain decisions taken by the
Government of India. The action is taken under Section
56 1(a) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Relevant portion
of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act reads as
under:
“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
2 Writ Petition No.1700 of 2026 dt. 2 nd July 2026
Page 6 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate specially empowered by
the State Government in that behalf
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are
causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or
harm to person or property, or
(b) that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is engaged or is about
to be engaged in the commission of an offence
involving force or violence or an offence
punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the
Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), or in the
abatement of any such offence and when in the
opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing
to come forward to give evidence in public
against such person by reason of apprehension on
their part as regards the safety of their person or
property, …”
6. Thus, what is contemplated by Section 56 1(a) is that
the movements or acts of any person are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or
property then action of externment can be taken. Sub-
Section 1(b) of Section 56 provides that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that such person is
engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of
an offence involving force or violence or an offence
punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of IPC. All these
offences are against human body.
Page 7 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
7. There is no material on record to show that the
movements or acts of the Petitioner are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or
property. In all these FIR, the allegation is that the
Petitioner, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Social
Democratic Party of India, has arranged
agitations/morchas/dharnas, opposing certain decisions
taken by the Government of India. The other allegation is
that such agitations/morchas/dharnas have been arranged
without permission of the Police. The same is an offence
under Section 188 of the IPC and maximum punishment is
of simple imprisonment of one month. However, that
cannot be a ground for passing the externment order
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act.
8. There is substance in the contention raised by Ms. Roy,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the action taken is
a mala fide action.
9. Although the Externment Proposal, the details of which
are set out in the Affidavit-in-Reply, records that the
movements and acts of the Petitioner are causing or are
calculated to cause, alarm, danger and harm to the public
Page 8 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
and property, perusal of the FIRs on the basis of which
action is taken and the gist of which is set out in the
Affidvit-in-Reply shows that the only allegation is that the
Petitioner has arranged agitations/morchas/dharnas
against certain decisions of the Union of India and given
slogans. Thus, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the
authorities that movements and acts of the Petitioner are
causing or are calculated to cause, alarm, danger and
harm to the public and property, is without any material
to support the same. Thus, the subjective satisfaction is
vitiated.
10. It is settled legal position that an order of externment
is an extraordinary measure and effect of such order is of
depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free
movement throughout the territory of India3.
11. Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India inter
alia contemplates that not only the citizens have the
freedom of speech and expression, but they also have the
right to live with dignity.
3 Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 99
Page 9 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
12. The action taken by the Respondent–State of
Maharashtra of externing the Petitioner, merely for
opposing certain decisions of the Government of India,
affects the Petitioner's fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression and also right to live with dignity.
13. Ms. Roy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin
(supra), as also the decision of the Gujarat High Court in
Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq Ahmed Siddiqui (supra).
14. The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin (supra), in
the context of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, has held that the power under said
Section cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression
of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic
rights.
15. The Gujarat High Court in Mohmmad Kaleem Taufiq
Ahmed Siddiqui (supra) in a similar case, wherein an
order of externment had been passed against the
Petitioner in that case for prote sting a decision of the
Union of India, observed that a citizen cannot be
Page 10 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
subjected to externment merely for raising grievances
against the Government and, therefore, the order of
externment was liable to be set aside.
16. The said observations of the Supreme Court and the
Gujarat High Court are squarely applicable to the present
case.”
(Emphasis added)
The reasoning in above paragraphs is also applicable to the present
case.
11. As far as C.R. No. 53 of 2024, which has been taken into
consideration by the Externing Authority while passing the order of
externment against the Petitioner is registered on 18 th January
2024. As show cause notice has been issued on 20 th October 2025,
i.e., after a period of 20 months after registrtion of the said
offence, there is no live link between the said offence and the
action of externment.
12. It is also required to be noted that the offence in C.R.No. 53
of 2024 has taken place on 30 th August 2023 and on 4th September
2023 but the F.I.R. has been registered on 18th January 2024. Thus
Page 11 of 12
30th September, 2026
939 WP-3068-2026.DOC
skt
the said C.R. No. 53 of 2024 could not been taken into
consideration while passing the order of externment against the
Petitioner.
13. Accordingly, interference in the impugned order is
warranted. The Writ Petition is disposed of by passing the
following order :
(a) The order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone 6, Chembur Mumbai in
Externment Case No. 471 of 2025 and order dated 21 st May
2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan
Division, Mumbai in Appeal No. 180 of 2025 are hereby
quashed and set aside.
14. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 12 of 12
30th September, 2026
Checking your session…