- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pawan Chaurasiya v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI ON THE 21stOF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 30206 of 2026
PAWAN CHAURASIYA
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harry Bamoriya - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Dheerendra Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
Counsel for the State does not dispute that after 30.04.2024, no criminal case was ever registered against the present petitioner. As there was no case registered against the petitioner after 30.04.2024, there was no reason to pass an order of externment against the petitioner.
2. The order of externment since has been passed in complete oblivion of the fact that there was no overt act at the behest of the petitioner in the recent past, an order of externment could not have been passed.
3. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of M.P. & others, 2009(4) MPLJ 434 has held as under:
"13. The Act of 1990 certain serious restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom under Article 19(1) of the Constitution and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and unless the conditions mentioned under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 are strictly satisfied, an order of externment, will have to be quashed by the Court. While considering a case under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, which also empowered the police to pass an order of externment, the Supreme Court observed in Pandharinath Shridhar
1
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra (supra), as under:—
"It is true that the provisions of section 56 make a serious inroad on personal liberty but such restraints have to be suffered in the larger interests of society. This Court in Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Bombay, (1952) 1 SCC 683 : 1952 SCR 737 : AIR 1952 SC 221 had upheld the validity of section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902, which corresponds to section 56 of the Act. Following that decision, the challenge to the constitutionality of section 56 was repelled in 1956 SCR 533 : AIR 1956 SC
585. We will only add that care must be taken to ensure that the terms of sections 56 and 59 are strictly complied with and that the slender safeguards which those provisions offer are made available to the proposed externee."
4. Thus, considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra) , the impugned order of externment dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) as well as the appellate order dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) stand set aside.
5. The petition stands allowed and disposed of. vc
2
Alert