RITIK @ SOMESH VILAS PARATE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER NAGPUR DIVISION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS.
Invalidity of Externment Orders Passed Under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act Without Distinguishing Statutory Parameters and Failing to Justify the Maximum Two-Year Duration.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5155
Decision Date: 27-03-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951; Constitution of India, 1950; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Facts: The petitioner, Ritik alias Somesh Vilas Parate, was subjected to externment proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur. The petitioner had a prior conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was subsequently involved in two other cases: one under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) involving a private dispute with a relative, and another under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Based on these, the Respondent No. 2 passed an externment order dated 16.10.2025, removing the petitioner from Nagpur District for the maximum period of two years. This order was subsequently upheld by the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, challenging the legality of the original externment order and the subsequent appellate order.
- Issue: Whether the externing authority properly exercised its power under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, by failing to distinguish between the requirements of Sections 56 and 57, and whether the imposition of the maximum externment period of two years without recording specific subjective satisfaction was legally sustainable.
- Holding: No, the externment orders were not sustainable. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, is specifically intended for persons already convicted who subsequently commit "similar" offences. The Court found that the externing authority erroneously relied on parameters applicable to Section 56, such as general impact on society, rather than the specific criteria of Section 57. Furthermore, the authority considered offences committed before the conviction, which are "extraneous considerations" under Section 57. Crucially, following the Supreme Court's precedent in Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that if an authority imposes the maximum externment period of two years, it must record specific subjective satisfaction justifying why the maximum duration is necessary. The failure to provide reasons for the maximum period constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
🔒 For Members Only