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

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 Petitioneris 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 thereis 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 on02.05.2025 and the Petitioner was externed on 13.08.2025. Thereare 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 theexternment 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. Theoffences registered against the Petitioner fall under Chapters XVI andXVII of the IPC and as such the Petitioner has been rightly externedfrom 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 learnedDivisional Commissioner has rightly maintained the order ofexternment 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 learnedCounsel 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 CriminalWrit Petition No.650/2021. The learned Counsel Mr.

Kothari further relied upon the judgment of the Single Bench of the Bombay HighCourt, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Mohammad Bin Saeed BinKileb and Ors. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Divisionand 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. Thereare 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. Theparagraph No.14 of the judgment in the case of Mohammad BinSaeed 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, theexternment proceedings was initiated against in all six persons including petitioner no.1 being chief of the gang and petitioner no.2being member of the gang. However, externment proceedings came tobe 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 RajuTejwal (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 externmentproceedings was initiated against six members and came to bedropped against four members of the gang and then the externmentorder 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.

AkashDahekar 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 proposedexterniee. 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 DivisionBench was on a consideration that only the Petitioner therein, wasexterned 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 adanger 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. Uponsuch 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 theIPC. Thus, I find no infirmity in the externment order.

12. Insofar as the appellate order passed by the learnedDivisional Commissioner is concerned, the Divisional Commissionerhas 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 concernedPolice Inspector on 03.07.2025, thereby showing that there is a live link.

The said observations of the learned Divisional Commissionertherefore clearly show application of mind by the Appellate Authorityto 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 JUDGENAJEEB.