The Bombay High Court has set aside an externment order under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, holding that mere registration of offences - even those involving violence - is insufficient without concrete evidence that witnesses are deterred from testifying due to fear for their safety. This ruling reinforces the statutory limits on preventive detention and mandates strict adherence to procedural safeguards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Salman Siraj Naje, was ordered to be externed from Raigad District for one year under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, on the grounds that his conduct was causing alarm or danger to persons or property and that he was engaged in offences involving force or violence. The order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat, on 27th May, 2025, and upheld on appeal by the Divisional Commissioner on 14th August, 2025.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice under Section 59 of the Act on 30th December, 2024.
- Ten criminal cases were cited against him between 2016 and 2024, registered at Neral Police Station.
- The offences included charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 194(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
- The petitioner had been acquitted in CR No. 142/2020 (IPC Sections 324, 504).
- ‘C’ Summary Report was filed in CR No. 2/2016 (IPC Sections 307, 326, 143, 147, 148, 149).
- NC Final Summary Report was submitted in CR No. 77/2020 (IPC Sections 324, 504, 427).
- CR No. 98/2020 (IPC Sections 379, 511, 34) was closed on 26th October, 2020, upon payment of penalty.
- Three cases (CR Nos. 119/2019, 153/2021, 290/2023) involved offences under the Animal Preservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
- CR No. 246/2024 (Section 194(2) BNS) was registered during the pendency of externment proceedings.
- No evidence was presented regarding witness intimidation or reluctance to testify.
Procedural History
- 30.12.2024: Show-cause notice issued under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
- 27.05.2025: Externment order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat.
- 14.08.2025: Divisional Commissioner dismissed appeal under Section 60, affirming the externment order.
- 28.08.2025: Writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 05.03.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 17.03.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the externment order dated 27th May, 2025, and the appellate order dated 14th August, 2025, on grounds of non-application of mind, inclusion of irrelevant offences, and failure to establish witness intimidation as required under Section 56(1)(b).
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an order of externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, can be sustained solely on the basis of registration of offences involving force or violence, or whether it additionally requires a specific finding that witnesses are deterred from testifying due to fear for their safety.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the externing authority improperly relied on offences that were either acquitted, closed by ‘C’ Summary or NC Final Reports, or fell outside the scope of Section 56(1)(b), such as those under the Animal Preservation Act. He emphasized that the statutory requirement of witness intimidation - essential under clause (b) - was entirely absent from the record. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Razak to argue that externment is a drastic measure requiring strict compliance with statutory conditions.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel contended that the petitioner’s consistent pattern of violent conduct, including multiple registered cases and a new offence under BNS during proceedings, justified the externment. He argued that the cumulative effect of these offences created a threat to public order and that the authority was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the totality of circumstances.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that externment under Section 56(1)(b) is not a punitive measure but a preventive one, and its exercise must be strictly confined to the statutory conditions. The Court held that mere registration of offences - even those under IPC Chapters XII, XVI, and XVII - is insufficient. The authority must record a subjective satisfaction, grounded in objective material, that the externee’s conduct has created a reign of terror such that witnesses are unwilling to testify in public due to fear for their person or property.
"The externing authority must record satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the externee by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property."
The Court noted that the order contained no reference to any confidential witness statements, no affidavits, no police reports indicating witness reluctance, and no assessment of the psychological impact on potential witnesses. The inclusion of offences under the Animal Preservation Act and cases closed by ‘C’ Summary or NC Reports was held to be extraneous and legally impermissible.
The Appellate Authority’s failure to correct these errors was deemed a violation of the duty to review the legality of the order. The Court concluded that the externment order was vitiated by irrelevant considerations and a complete absence of the mandatory statutory condition under clause (b).
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The externment order dated 27th May, 2025, and the appellate order dated 14th August, 2025, were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be restored to his normal status within Raigad District without any restriction. No further directions were issued as the order itself was void ab initio.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Externment Cannot Be Based on Pending or Quashed Cases
- Practitioners must challenge externment orders that rely on cases closed by ‘C’ Summary, NC Reports, or acquittals.
- Such cases are legally irrelevant under Section 56(1)(b) and render the order ultra vires.
Witness Intimidation Must Be Explicitly Proven
- Authorities must record specific, objective evidence of witness fear - e.g., affidavits, police surveillance reports, or witness statements.
- Generalized assertions of ‘public fear’ or ‘reign of terror’ without corroboration are insufficient.
Offences Outside IPC Chapters XII, XVI, XVII Are Inadmissible
- Offences under special statutes like the Animal Preservation Act or Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act cannot form the basis of externment under Section 56(1)(b).
- Any reliance on such offences constitutes a jurisdictional error.
Procedural Rigor Is Non-Negotiable
- Externment orders are subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227.
- Courts will not defer to administrative discretion where statutory conditions are unmet.
The Burden of Justification Lies with the State
- The State must demonstrate compliance with all statutory prerequisites.
- Failure to do so results in automatic quashing, regardless of the petitioner’s prior conduct.
