REHANA ABDUL HAMID MULANI @ RALLY APPAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                   906-WP-4711-2026.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4711 OF 2026


Rehana Abdul Hamid Mulani @ Rally Appa &              …Petitioners
Anr.
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                       …Respondents


Mr. Vivek Shukla i/b. Mr. Dilip Gupta a/w. Mr. Ashok Shukla and
Mr. Rohan Surve, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Vinod Tarmale, API, attached to Kasturba Marg Police Station,
Mumbai, present.


                       CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :      18th SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners and Mrs. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the

Respondents-State.



2.       The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the legality

and validity of the order dated 11th September 2026 passed by the

Special Executive Magistrate alias Deputy Commissioner of Police,

North Circle-3, Dahisar (East), Mumbai, whereby, in exercise of

powers under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha




                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                  906-WP-4711-2026.DOC




Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Petitioners have been directed to

leave the area of Mumbai City for the period from 14 th September

2026 to 25th September 2026, during which the Ganpati Festival is

being celebrated, for the purpose of maintaining peace and for

maintaining law and order.



3.       It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners that no notice whatsoever was given to the Petitioners

before taking the impugned action. He submits that an Externment

Order under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959

had earlier been passed against Petitioner No.2, which was set

aside by the learned Single Judge by order dated 10 th December

2024 passed in Writ Petition (ST) No.11996 of 2024. He further

submits that the present action has been taken on the very same

grounds and therefore, the same is not tenable.



4.       On the other hand, Mrs. Yadav, learned APP, strongly opposes

the Writ Petition. She submits that, as far as Petitioner No.1 is

concerned, 17 offences have been registered against her, including

serious offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), bodily offences and robbery.




                                 Page 2
Sonali
                                                  906-WP-4711-2026.DOC




As regards Petitioner No.2, she submits that 10 offences have been

registered against him, including offences under the NDPS Act,

bodily offences and robbery. She, therefore, submits that the

impugned order does not call for any interference and the Writ

Petition be dismissed.



5.       At the outset, it is required to be taken into consideration

that the impugned action has been taken under Section 163 of the

BNSS. Sub-Section (2) of Section 163 provides that an order under

the said section may, in cases of emergency, or where the

circumstances do not admit of the service, in due time, of a notice

upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex

parte. Thus, the provision itself contemplates passing of an ex

parte order in the circumstances specified therein.



6.       It is further required to be noted that Sub-Section (4) of

Section 163 of the BNSS provides that no order made under the

said section shall remain in force for more than two months from

the date of making thereof. The said period of two months may be

extended for a further period of six months in the circumstances




                                 Page 3
Sonali
                                                   906-WP-4711-2026.DOC




set out in the proviso to Sub-Section (4) of Section 163 of the

BNSS.



7.       As far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned, 17 offences have been

registered against her, including serious offences under the NDPS

Act, bodily offences and robbery. As regards Petitioner No.2, 10

offences have been registered against him, including offences

under the NDPS Act, bodily offences and robbery.



8.       In this particular case, the impugned order operates only for

the period from 14th September 2026 to 25th September 2026, i.e.

during the period of the Ganpati Festival. Thus, it cannot be said

that the power under Section 163 of the BNSS has been exercised

without application of mind and in arbitrary manner.



9.       As regards the contention that externment action had earlier

been taken against Petitioner No.2 on the same ground and that

the said action was set aside, it is relevant to note that the

Externment Order was set aside by the learned Single Judge order

dated 10th December 2024 passed in Writ Petition (ST) No.11996

of 2024. While setting aside the said order, the Court noted, inter




                                 Page 4
Sonali
                                                   906-WP-4711-2026.DOC




alia, the considerable time gap between the registration of the

offences and the Externment Order and that the area of

externment was excessive. In any event, the power exercised under

Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959 is distinct from the

power exercised under Section 163 of the BNSS, particularly

having regard to the limited period for which the impugned order

operates.



10.      It is required to be noted that there are 17 offences have

been registered against Petitioner No.1, whereas 10 offences have

been registered against Petitioner No.2.



11.      The impugned order also makes reference to confidential

intelligence received by the police authorities.



12.      In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no

illegality or irregularity is found in passing the impugned order.



13.      Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order in




                                Page 5
Sonali
                                                                906-WP-4711-2026.DOC




            exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227

            of the Constitution of India.



            14.      Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.




                                                         [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]



       Digitally
       signed by
       SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
       2026.09.19
       12:52:27
       +0530




                                              Page 6
            Sonali