Bombay High Court
Mohd Halim Mohd Hanif Khan vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 April, 2026
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:18567
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1068 OF 2026
Mohd Halim Mohd Hanif Khan ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Ms. Heena Mushtaq Ahmed, h/f Mr. Salman Khan, for the Petitioner.
Mr. D.J. Haldankar, APP, for the Respondents-State.
Shri Ritesh Patil, PSI, Chunabhatti Police Station present.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 16th APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner takes exception to an order dated 6 th February 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan, Mumbai in Appeal No.101 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, against an order of externment dated 12th July 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai, by invoking the power under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, 1951, came to be dismissed.
ARS 1/8
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
3. An externment proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner alleging that the acts and movements of the Petitioner were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner was engaged or was about to be engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence or offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code") and the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against the Petitioner on account of the terror created by the Petitioner.
4. The Competent Authority took into account the following crimes registered against the Petitioner:
Sr. Police Station C.R.No. Sections Court Case Current No. No. status 1 Chunabhatti 221 of 2019 324, 323, 504, 506, 2317/PW/ Subjudice 34 452 of IPC 21 2 Sion 336 of 2021 419, 511, 506 of 1931/M/22 Subjudice IPC 3 Chunabhatti 371 of 2023 02, 307, 326, 324, Sessions Subjudice 323, 120(B), 143, Case No. 145, 147, 148, 149, 100007/20 109 of IPC and 24 37(1)(A), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 3 and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act 4 Chunabhatti 522 of 2024 308(4), 351(2), 352 726/PW/2 Subjudice and 111 of IPC 5
5. In addition a reference was made to the reports of non-cognizable offences and the prohibitory actions taken against the Petitioner.ARS 2/8
-WP-1068-2026.DOC
6. Eventually, the Petitioner came to be externed from the limits of Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad Districts, for a term of 24 months.
7. Being aggrieved the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before Respondent No.3. By the impugned order, the Appeal came to be dismissed by affirming the order of externment.
8. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction.
9. Ms. Heena Mushtaq Ahmed, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order suffers from a clear non- application of mind. In CR No. 336 of 2021 (Sr. No. 2 in the table extracted above), the Investigating Officer had filed B-summary report dated 10th February 2022. Yet, in the impugned order the said crime was shown to be subjudice. The first informant in CR No. 221 of 2019 and the Petitioner amicably resolved the dispute and a pursis has also been filed in Case No. 2317/PW/21, arising out of CR No. 221 of 2019. The action was essentially initiated on the basis of CR No. 522 of 2024, registered at Chunabhatti Police Station.
10. In contrast to this, Mr. D. J. Haldankar, the learned APP, supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the Competent Authority has passed the impugned order on the basis of the objective material and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Competent ARS 3/8
-WP-1068-2026.DOC Authority on the basis of objective material is not open for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
11. The Petitioner was ordered to be externed by invoking the provisions contained in Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, 1951. The measure of externment, by its very nature, is extra-ordinary. It has the effect of forced displacement from the home and surroundings. Often it affects the livelihood of the person ordered to be externed, and the dependants on him. Thus, there must exist justifiable ground to sustain an order of externment. The order of externment, therefore, must be strictly within the bounds of the statutory provisions. Under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 56, the externing authority must be satisfied on the basis of the objective material that the movements or acts of the person to be externed were causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Under clause (b), there must be an objective material on the strength of which the externing authority must record subjective satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the externee was engaged or was about to be engaged in the commission of offences involving force or violence.
12. Mere registration of a number of offences by itself does not sustain an externment under Section 56(1)(b) of the Act. The offences must either involve elements of force or violence or fall under Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the externing ARS 4/8
-WP-1068-2026.DOC 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. In effect, to sustain an action of externment under sub-clause
(b), the offences the externee has engaged in must be under one of the Chapters enumerated therein and that the acts or conduct of the externee were such that the witnesses were terrified and dissuaded from giving evidence against the externee in public fearing safety of their person or property.
13. Reverting to the facts of the case, it becomes evident that the Competent Authority took into account the crime registered at CR No. 336 of 2021 at Sion Police Station though the Investigating Officer had filed a B-summary report. The Competent Authority's decision was thus influenced by an extraneous consideration.
14. Secondly, CR No. 221 of 2019 registered at Chunabhatti Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 324, 323, 504, 506, and 452 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code ought not to have taken into account the said crime was registered in the year 2019 and there was no live-link between the said crime and the extreme measure of externment. Thirdly, the Court finds that no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the Competent Authority that the witnesses were ARS 5/8
-WP-1068-2026.DOC not coming forward to give evidence against the Petitioner in public, as they feared for safety of their person or property.
15. Lastly, the Competent Authority was not alive to the necessity of recording of the subjective satisfaction as regards the term of the externment and proceeded to extern the Petitioner for the full term of 24 months, without ascribing any reason.
16. Under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, 1951, a person can be externed for a full term of two years. However, the Competent Authority must indicate reasons as to why it considered it appropriate to extern the externee for the full term of two years as the order of externment impinges upon the fundamental freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.
17. A useful reference can be made to the decision in the case of Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1, wherein the Supreme Court, after adverting to the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, 1951, underscored the necessity of arriving at the subjective satisfaction regarding the term of externment also on the basis of objective material. It was ruled that, where the externee is externed for a maximum permissible period of two years, without recording the subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of the externment for a full term, it would amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights guaranteed under clause (d) of 1 (2023) 14 SCC 707 ARS 6/8
-WP-1068-2026.DOC Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The observations in paragraph No.16 of the said judgment are instructive, and, hence, extracted below :
"16. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent that while passing an order under Section 56, the competent authority must mention the area or District or Districts in respect of which the order has been made. Moreover, the competent authority is required to specify the period for which the restriction will remain in force. The maximum period provided for is of two years. Therefore, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is required for deciding the duration of the restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of objective assessment of the material on record, the authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that the restriction should be imposed for a specific period. When the competent authority passes an order for the maximum permissible period of two years, the order of externment must disclose an application of mind by the competent authority and the order must record its subjective satisfaction about the necessity of passing an order of externment for the maximum period of two years which is based on material on record. Careful perusal of the impugned order of externment dated 15 December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any application of mind on this aspect. It does not record the subjective satisfaction of the respondent No.2 on the basis of material on record that the order of externment should be for the maximum period of two years. If the order of externment for the maximum permissible period of two years is passed without recording subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of extending the order of externment to the maximum permissible period, ARS 7/8
-WP-1068-2026.DOC it will amount to imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, as the impugned order is bereft of any reason on the point of externment for the full term of two years, the same cannot be legally sustained.
19. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned order suffers from vice of non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of the power to extern the Petitioner under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, 1951, and thereby impinges upon the fundamental freedom of the Petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution. The Petition thus deserves to be allowed.
20. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 6th February 2026 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan, as well as the order dated 12th July 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, externing the Petitioner, stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(iv) No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Signed by: S.S.Phadke ARS 8/8
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/04/2026 21:13:18