Bombay High Court

SANTOSH DATTATRAY BHINGARE AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The externment orders are quashed because the authorities failed to record subjective satisfaction under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, rendering the orders illegal.

Summary

The petitioners, four brothers, challenged two-year externment orders issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Solapur, which barred them from Solapur and Dharashiv districts. They argued that the authorities did not apply their mind, failed to record subjective satisfaction under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, and relied on stale offences from 2020‑2021 unrelated to the 2024 offences. The respondents contended that the petitioners were habitual offenders and that the orders were justified. The Court examined the chart of offences, noted that mere registration of offences does not suffice for externment and that the statutory requirement of recording satisfaction that witnesses are unwilling to testify was not met. Relying on the precedent in Ahammad Mainuddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held the orders illegal and quashed them, allowing the petition and disposing of the case.

Issues considered

Whether the externment orders complied with the requirement of recording subjective satisfaction under Section 56(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Whether stale offences from 2020‑2021 can justify externment in 2024.
Whether the authorities satisfied the statutory criteria of Section 55 regarding collective action against a gang.
Whether the procedural requirements for externment were duly observed.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 149, 324, 326, 504, 506
Maharashtra Police Act — s. 55, 56
Motor Vehicles Act — s. 135, 37

Subjects

externment
Maharashtra Police Act
Section 56
subjective satisfaction
procedural fairness
stale offences
gang prosecution
quashing of order

Judgment

2-wp-4463-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4463 OF 2025

1. Santosh Dattatraya Bhingare,
Age-57 years, Occu-Labour,

2. Ritik Santosh Bhingare,
Age-32 years, Occu-Labour,

3. Yash Santosh Bhingare,
Age-21 years, Occu-Labour,

4. Tushar Shankar Bhingare,
Age-22 years, Occu-Labour,
Digitally
signed by All R/o. 73, East Mangalwar Peth,
SHAILAJA
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
Solapur, Dist. Solapur ...Petitioners
HALKUDE Date:
2026.09.29
12:14:10
+0530 VERSUS

1. State of Maharashtra

2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Pune Division, Pune

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone)
Solapur City ...Respondents

…..
Mr. Sajid Ahmad Bagwan, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP for the Respondents-State
…..

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026

1 of 8
2-wp-4463-2025

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with the consent of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners as well as the

learned A.P.P.

2. The Petitioners are assailing an externment order dated

19-08-2025 passed by Respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner,

Pune in Externment Appeal/SR/EA/255/2024 and order dated

24.10.2024 in externment proceedings No.47/ 2024-2743 passed by

Respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone), Solapur,

by which Petitioners have been externed from Solapur District and

Dharashiv District for a period of two years.

3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners vehemently

contended that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional

Commissioner have not applied their mind while passing the

externment orders against the Petitioners and, without recording their

subjective satisfaction, passed the impugned orders.

4. He further argued that while passing the orders, the

learned Authorities have erred in considering the offences for the year

2020 and 2021, which are stale offences in the sense that there is no

live link between the said offences and the necessity of passing of

externment orders and that they have initiated the proceedings and

passed the impugned orders only based on the offence of the year
2 of 8
2-wp-4463-2025

2024. Therefore, he urged that the said orders cannot be sustained in

the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside. To buttress his

submission, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in Ahammad

Mainuddin Shaikh Vs The State of Maharashtra and another1 and

drew my attention to para 13 and 14 of the said decision.

5. Per Contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the

Petition, contending that the Petitioners are habitual offenders and

three offences have been registered against them. Due to the

Petitioners' terror, nobody will come forward to lodge a complaint

against them. Therefore, the orders passed by the Authorities are just

and proper; as such, he urged for dismissing the Petition.

6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and

gone through the record, it would be appropriate to reproduce the

chart of the offences based on which the impugned order was passed,

as under:

Lakrks”k fHkaxkjs
v- Ikskyhl Bk.ks xq-j-ua-dye ln;LFkhrh izfrca/kd dkjokbZ
dz-
1- QkStnkj pkoMh 393@2024 Hkknfod riklkoj ---
326]324]504]506]143]147]
149 lg eks- okgu vf/k-
dye 37]135 lg vkeZ vWDV
4@25
1 (2013) 4 Bom CR (Cri) 559

3 of 8
2-wp-4463-2025

2- TkksMHkkoh isB 750@2020 Hkknfod U;k;izfo”B fn-31-07-2020 jksth
323]504]143]148]149 pk-ds-dz- 57@2020
izek.ks flvkjihlh
dye 107 izek.ks
dkjokbZ
3- TkksMHkkoh isB 136@2021 Hkknfod U;k;izfo”B fn-07-09-2021 jksth
307]326]324]323]504]141]143] pk-dz-50@2021
147]148]149] lg vkeZ vWDV izek.sk flvkjihlh
4@25 e-iks-vf/k- dye 135 dye 110 izek.ks
lg vkiRrh O;oLFkkiu dkjokbZ
dk;nk dye 51 c

_frd larks”k fHkaxkjs

1- QkStnkj pkoMh 393@2024 Hkknfod riklkoj ---
326]324]504]506]143]
147]149 lg eks- okgu vf/k-
dye 37]135 lg vkeZ vWDV
4@25
2- TkskMHkkoh isB 750@2020 Hkknfod U;k;izfo”B fn-31-07-2020 jksth
323]504]143]148]149 p¡ds-dz- 57@2020
izek.ks flvkjihlh
dye 107 izek.ks
dkjokbZ
3- tksMHkkokh isB 136@2021 Hkknfod U;k;izfo”B fn-07-09-2021 jksth
307]326]324]323]504]141]143] pW- dsl- dz-
147]148]149] lg vkeZ vWDV 49@2021 izek.ks
4@25 e-iks-vf/k- dye 135 flvkjihlh dye
lg vkiRrh O;oLFkkiu 110 izek.ks dkjokbZ
dk;nk dye 51 c

;’k larks”k fHkaxkjs
1- QkStnkj pkoMh 393@2024 Hkknfod riklkoj ---
326]324]504]506]143]147]149
lg eks- okgu vf/k- dye
37]135 lg vkeZ vWDV 4@25
2- TkskMHkkoh isB 750@2020 Hkknfod U;k;izfo”B ---
323]504]143]148]149

4 of 8
2-wp-4463-2025

rq”kkj larks”k fHkaxkjs
1- QkStnkj pkoMh 393@2024 Hkknfod riklkoj ---
326]324]504]506]143]147]149
lg eks- okgu vf/k- dye
37]135 lg vkeZ vWDV 4@25
2- TkskMHkkoh isB 750@2020 Hkknfod U;k;izfo”B pW- dsl ua-
323]504]143]148]149 57@2020
lhvkjihlh 107 fn-
07-09-2021

7. Bare perusal of the chart shows that offences at Serial

Nos. 2 and 3 are of the year 2020 and 2021. Those are stale offences,

and in fact, there is no live link between the said offences and the

passing of the impugned orders; there is no necessity of passing the

impugned orders. The only offence registered in 2024 was for the

offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 149

of the IPC, Sections 37 and 135 of the Motor Vehicles Act and section

4/25 of the Arms Act. The authorities initiated proceedings against

them and passed the impugned orders.

8. It is trite law that mere registration of the number of

offences by itself does not sustain an externment under Section 56(1)

of the Maharashtra Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The offences must either involve force or violence or fall within

Chapters XII, XVI, and XVII of the IPC. In addition, the externing

authority must record satisfaction that the witnesses are unwilling to

come forward to give evidence in public against the externee because
5 of 8
2-wp-4463-2025

they apprehend for themselves or their property. In Ahammad (supra),

in paras 13 and 14, this Court has observed as under:

“13. So, it is clear that whatever criminal cases are
there against the alleged gang members, they are more
individualistic in nature than collective and do not show
that these persons have got together and are indulging in
criminal acts as a group. This material certainly does not
make out any case against the petitioner as a member or
chief of a gang or body of persons. There is no other
material mentioned in the order which is relevant for
determining as to whether or not the petitioner is a
leader or member of a gang or body of persons.
Therefore, the very first requirement of Section 55 is not
satisfied in this case and on this ground alone the order
passed by the externing authority and also the order of
the appellate authority confirming it, deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
14. The illegality so committed by both authorities
does not stop here. The externing authority, while
passing the final order which has been confirmed by the
appellate authority, has directed externment only against
the petitioner and not the remaining 5 members of his
alleged gang, for a period of one year from the district of
Kolhapur. Such discrimination between members of the
gang is not permissible in law, particularly when
collective criminal activity is alleged on their part by
arraigning at least some of them as accused along with
the petitioner. Section 55 of the Act contemplates a
collective action against the gang or body of persons
and, therefore, the final direction that is required to be
issued in terms of this section would also have to be
necessarily against each of the members of the gang and
not against one or a few of them on a selective basis. So,
on this ground also, we find that the impugned orders are
absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in law.”

6 of 8
2-wp-4463-2025

9. Perused the impugned orders. Though the learned Deputy

Commissioner of Police (Zone) Solapur City and the Divisional

Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, have observed that, having

considered the nature of the offences, it seems that the Petitioners

have committed serious crimes against the person and property. They

have no fear of the law and order. In fact, the Authorities must record

their subjective satisfaction that one of the grounds under Section 56

(1) of the Act exists, based on the objective material placed before

them, and not write a judgment containing elaborate reasons for

invoking the powers under Section 56 of the Act. It is observed that

the witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence against

the Petitioners, rather than merely observing that two witnesses came

forward to give evidence, but they have not lodged any report against

them. Therefore, prima facie, I do not find substance in the contention

of learned APP in that regard.

10. Having considered the above discussion and facts of the

case as well as law laid down by this Court in Ahammad (supra), it

reveals that the Authorities failed to record their subjective satisfaction

of the existence of one of the grounds as contemplated under Section

56 of the Act. But the impugned orders were passed without recording

their subjective satisfaction.

7 of 8
2-wp-4463-2025

11. Thus, it appears that the orders show non-application of

mind and arbitrariness. Therefore, the orders become vulnerable. The

orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

12. As a result, the Petition deserves to be allowed and

accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 19-08-2025 passed

by Respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Pune in Externment

Appeal/SR/EA/255/2024 and order dated 24.10.2024 in externment

proceedings No.47/ 2024-2743 passed by Respondent No. 3- Deputy

Commissioner of Police (Zone), Solapur are hereby quashed and set

aside.

13. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order

as to costs.

14. The Petition is disposed of.

[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]

VishalK/2criwp4463.25.odt

8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…