Bombay HC Upholds 18-Month Externment of Gang Member Under Section 55 of Maharashtra Police Act

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an externment order, holding that subjective satisfaction under Section 55 is assessed against the entire gang's activities, not just the individual member's cases.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, sitting singly at the Bombay High Court, on 27 July 2026 dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by Vignesh Ramesh Kamble, who had challenged his externment from Mumbai for a period of 18 months. The court drew a clear distinction between the subjective satisfaction required under Section 55 and Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and held that where a person is externalised as a member of a gang, the authorities are entitled to assess the collective criminal record of the gang rather than confining their inquiry to cases registered against that individual alone. The petitioner had sought to rely on a precedent that the court found inapplicable on the facts.

The Externment Orders Under Challenge

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai passed an externment order on 21 January 2026 in Externment Case No. 16/C/43, directing that Kamble be externalised for 18 months. Kamble appealed, but the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, dismissed the appeal on 3 July 2026 in Externment Appeal No. 30 of 2026, confirming the original order.

Kamble then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 3614 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and validity of both orders.

Gang of 31 Cases, Four Against the Petitioner

The impugned orders recorded that approximately 31 criminal cases had been filed against the gang and its members. The gang is led by one Sunil @ Sunny Balaram Patil. Kamble was identified as a member of that gang.

Against Kamble personally, four criminal cases had been registered. One of those cases, C.R. No. 544 of 2023 registered with the Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai, involved offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also invoked the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. That case remains pending trial. Kamble's counsel pointed out that he had been acquitted in three of the four cases. The court acknowledged this but did not find it determinative.

The API from Chunabhatti Police Station, Mumbai, was present in court during the hearing.

Section 55 and Section 56: Two Different Standards

The central legal question was whether the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities met the standard required by the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The court analysed the difference between the two provisions in some detail.

Under Section 55, the externment power is exercised against a gang or body of persons. The authority must record subjective satisfaction that the movement or encampment of the gang in the area is causing or is calculated to cause danger, alarm, or reasonable suspicion that unlawful designs are being entertained. The focus is on the activities of the gang as a collective.

Section 56, by contrast, applies to action against an individual. The authority must be satisfied that the movements or acts of that person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to person or property, or that there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is engaged or is about to be engaged in an offence involving force or violence or offences punishable under specified chapters of the Indian Penal Code.

The court was direct: “the subjective satisfaction required to be recorded under Section 55 and under Section 56 is totally different.” Because the action in this case was taken against Kamble as a member of a gang under Section 55, the adequacy of the subjective satisfaction had to be measured against the gang's overall criminal profile, not merely the four cases against Kamble.

Precedent Relied Upon by Petitioner Distinguished

Kamble's counsel placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge in Jabbar Razzak Shaikh & Anr. v. The Divisional Commissioner, Pune & Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 3900 of 2018, decided 16 June 2023). In that case, the court had found fault with the externment proceedings because, although the show cause notice referred to statements of witnesses recorded in camera, only the gist of those allegations appeared in the show cause notice, whereas detailed statements were recorded in the impugned order.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Savita M. Yadav, appearing for the State, submitted that the ratio of Jabbar Razzak Shaikh was not applicable to the present case. Justice Jamdar agreed. The court found that the facts in this case were materially different and that the Jabbar Razzak Shaikh decision did not assist the petitioner.

Adequacy of Subjective Satisfaction

The court examined the impugned orders and found that both the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Divisional Commissioner had taken into account that Kamble was a member of a gang against which 31 criminal cases had been filed. They had further noted that the last case registered against Kamble personally involved offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code alongside the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, and that this case was pending trial.

The court held that there was adequate material on record, including material relating to Kamble himself, demonstrating that the subjective satisfaction recorded under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was properly recorded in the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference with the orders was warranted.

Order

The writ petition was dismissed. Both the externment order dated 21 January 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6, Chembur, Mumbai and the appellate order dated 3 July 2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai stand confirmed. The 18-month externment of Vignesh Ramesh Kamble remains in force.