The Bombay High Court has clarified that externment under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, cannot be imposed selectively on individuals based on isolated criminal complaints. The judgment reinforces that the provision is designed to address collective gang conduct, and targeting only a few members while ignoring others renders the order legally unsustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners - Adil Zaheer Ahmed Shaikh, Zain Junaid Khan, Affan Mukhtar Khan, and Mohd. Sameer Mohd Raees Khan - were externed from Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane, and Raigad Districts for two years under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The externment order, dated 25.07.2025, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, following an inquiry into alleged gang activity led by Mohammad Sayeed Mohammad Rakib Khan. The petitioners challenged the order before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, whose appeal order dated 10.03.2026 upheld the externment. The petitioners contended that they were singled out without sufficient evidence of gang membership or collective criminal conduct.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were named in CR No. 100 of 2025 registered at Chunabhatti Police Station, alleging unlawful assembly and use of criminal force against police on 15.02.2025.
- In CR No. 100/2025, the police reported that two groups were engaged in a fight; when officers intervened, the alleged gang leader and his nephew pushed them aside and fled.
- The petitioners were named as participants in the unlawful assembly but were not identified as associates or followers of the alleged gang leader.
- Mohd. Sameer Mohd Raees Khan was also linked to CR No. 145 of 2008 (Nehru Nagar PS) and CR No. 521 of 2023 (Chunabhatti PS).
- In CR No. 145/2008, the petitioner and others were acquitted by the trial court on 12.05.2011.
- In CR No. 521/2023, the police filed a report under Section 169 CrPC, concluding no prima facie case existed.
- The petitioners were not named in any other FIRs against the alleged gang leader or his core associates.
- On 26.04.2025, notices under Section 59 of the Police Act were served on the petitioners and others, calling for show-cause why externment should not be ordered.
- The externment order was passed on 25.07.2025 and confirmed on appeal on 10.03.2026.
Procedural History
- 15.02.2025: Incident leading to CR No. 100/2025 at Chunabhatti Police Station.
- 26.04.2025: Section 59 notices issued to petitioners and co-externees.
- 25.07.2025: Externment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI.
- 08.08.2025: Appeals filed by petitioners before Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.
- 10.03.2026: Divisional Commissioner dismissed appeals, upholding externment.
- 13.03.2026: Bombay HC quashed externment orders against co-externees Murtuza Mustakin Qureshi and Fahad Mustakin Qureshi in WP(C) No. 1011 of 2026.
- 19.04.2026: Writ Petitions No. 1930 and 1931 of 2026 filed before Bombay HC.
- 30.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice N.J. Jamadar.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued they were not part of the alleged gang. Their inclusion in CR No. 100/2025 was incidental to a spontaneous altercation between two groups, not a coordinated gang activity. They highlighted their acquittal in CR No. 145/2008 and the closure of CR No. 521/2023 under Section 169 CrPC. They relied on the HC’s earlier decision in WP(C) No. 1011 of 2026, where similar facts led to quashing of externment.
For the Respondent-State
The State contended that the petitioners were part of a known criminal group operating in Kurla East, and their presence in CR No. 100/2025, even if isolated, justified externment under Section 55. The State did not dispute the acquittal or closure of other cases but argued that past association and location were sufficient grounds.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the externment order dated 25.07.2025 and the appellate order dated 10.03.2026, and a direction to remove all records of externment from their personal files.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 permits the externment of individuals based on isolated criminal complaints, when the evidence does not establish their membership in a gang acting collectively, and when other alleged gang members are not similarly targeted.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Ahammad Mainuddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Vijay Lalaso Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, both Division Bench judgments of the Bombay HC, which held that Section 55 requires collective action against all members of a gang, not selective targeting. They argued that the petitioners’ involvement in CR No. 100/2025 was not as gang members but as participants in a spontaneous brawl. The acquittal in CR No. 145/2008 and closure under Section 169 CrPC further negated any basis for gang association. The parity with the quashed externment orders in WP(C) No. 1011 of 2026 demanded identical relief.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the petitioners’ presence in the vicinity of the incident and their prior criminal records (even if acquitted or closed) justified the externment. It contended that Section 55 is preventive in nature and does not require conviction, only reasonable suspicion of gang affiliation. The State did not address the selective application of the order against only some members of the alleged gang.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, which empowers authorities to issue externment orders against gangs whose collective movements cause alarm or reasonable suspicion of unlawful designs. The Court emphasized that the provision is not meant for individual criminal punishment but for neutralizing the threat posed by organized group conduct.
"Section 55 would be applicable only when the persons are seen to be acting as members of the gang or body of persons and it is only then that action under Section 55 of the Act can be taken and which is to be taken against all members and not only a few of them selectively."
The Court noted that the petitioners were not named in any other FIRs against the alleged gang leader or his core associates. The only incident linking them to the group was CR No. 100/2025, which described a fight between two groups, not a coordinated gang operation. The petitioners were not identified as followers, lieutenants, or regular associates of the gang leader. The Court held that their inclusion was arbitrary and violated the principle of equal treatment under the law.
The Court further observed that the State’s failure to extern other alleged gang members, despite similar or greater involvement, rendered the order discriminatory and procedurally flawed. The reliance on acquitted or closed cases as grounds for externment was deemed legally unsustainable. The Court concluded that the externment order suffered from a fundamental error: it treated individualistic, non-gang-related conduct as evidence of collective gang membership.
The Verdict
The petitions were allowed. The externment order dated 25.07.2025 and the appellate order dated 10.03.2026 were quashed and set aside. All records of externment against the petitioners were directed to be expunged from official files. The State was directed to comply within four weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Externment Cannot Be Based on Isolated FIRs
- Practitioners must challenge externment orders where the alleged link to a gang is based on a single, non-gang-related FIR.
- Acquittals or Section 169 CrPC closures must be raised as decisive evidence against gang association.
Collective Action Is Mandatory Under Section 55
- Authorities must extern all identifiable members of a gang, not select individuals arbitrarily.
- Selective externment violates the statutory mandate and opens the order to judicial review.
Preemptive Externment Requires Concrete Gang Nexus
- Mere presence in a locality or prior unrelated criminal history is insufficient.
- The State must demonstrate active, ongoing participation in a gang’s collective unlawful conduct.
Parity in Judicial Relief Is Binding
- Where a court quashes an externment order for one individual on specific grounds, identical relief must be granted to others with materially identical circumstances.
