Bombay HC Quashes Man’s Externment, Orders Maharashtra To Pay ₹10,000 After Authorities Relied On Stayed FIR Proceedings And 2017–18 Cases

In brief

The question

Whether the 2017 and 2018 matters provided a live link to the externment action taken in 2025.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside both the Deputy Commissioner’s externment order dated 23 December 2025 and the Divisional Commissioner’s appellate order dated 27 October 2026.

It also directed

It directed the State of Maharashtra to pay the Petitioner costs of ₹10,000 within four weeks.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Bhiwandi, externed the Petitioner by order dated 23 December 2025, relying on three matters: a 2025 offence under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which was under investigation; a 2018 offence; and a 2017 non-cognizable offence.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5

The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal on 27 October 2026.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The Petitioner challenged both orders, contending that the older matters were stale and the 2025 matter could not support externment while under investigation. He also relied on a Division Bench order staying further proceedings in the 2025 matter.

pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 3, 9

The State informed the Court that it proposed to file a “C-Summary” in that matter.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the 2017 and 2018 matters provided a live link to the externment action taken in 2025.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

ii.Whether an offence still under investigation—and whose further proceedings had been stayed by the High Court—could form the basis for the externment order.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 7–11

iii.Whether the impugned orders warranted setting aside and an award of costs.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 11, 14

03Law Applied

An externment order is an extraordinary measure that restricts a citizen’s fundamental right to move freely throughout India.

p. 7 · ¶ 12

The Court relied on *Imtiyaz Hussain Sayyad v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.*, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 442, for the principle that crimes still under investigation cannot be considered as the basis for externment because the investigation may not result in the accused being sent for trial.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

The judgment also treated the absence of a live link between stale offences and the externment action as relevant to the validity of the order.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

*Deepak s/o Laxman Dongre v. State of Maharashtra*, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 99.

p. 7 · ¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Section 11

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 397 Section 504 Section 506

04Reasoning

The 2017 and 2018 matters were too remote from the 2025 externment action to establish a live link.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

The 2025 matter was still under investigation when the externment order was made, and the State subsequently indicated that it proposed to file a “C-Summary”.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4, 7

Further, a Division Bench had stayed proceedings arising from that matter after observing prima facie that Sections 5A and 5B of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 were inapplicable; nevertheless, the externment authorities relied on its registration.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 9–10

The Court held that the authorities’ satisfaction lacked material support and characterised the action as mala fide, warranting costs.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

05Holding

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside both the Deputy Commissioner’s externment order dated 23 December 2025 and the Divisional Commissioner’s appellate order dated 27 October 2026.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 14(a)

It directed the State of Maharashtra to pay the Petitioner costs of ₹10,000 within four weeks.

p. 8 · ¶ 14(B)

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

p. 8 · ¶ 15

LawLens.Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF