Judgment : Mrs. Bhatkar, J. 1. This Petition takes an exception against the order of externment dated 26.4.2012 passed by Respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone X, Mumbai and also the order dated 28.3.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority praying that these two orders be quashed and set aside. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by Respondent No.1 is not as per the requirement of section 56(1) (a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The learned Counsel gave chronological details of the events and the orders as follows: i) The externee was arrested on 3.1.2012 in relation to C.R. No.1 of 2012 of Jogeshwari Police Station; ii) Notice of externment was issued on 13.2.2012; iii) order of externment was passed on 26.4.2012, iv) bail application dated 17.5.2012 filed by the petitioner was allowed in the said case on 24.7.2012 by this Court. 3. The main bone of contention of the petitioner is that a notice was issued to the petitioner when he was in judicial custody. After three months of his arrest, order of externment dated 26.4.2012 was passed. It was necessary for the Authority to mention the fact of his custody and future possibility of he committing any offence in the said order. The learned Counsel submitted that subjective satisfaction of the Authority is not reflected on this point in the said order. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge in Rajkishore Shivshankar Tiwari vs. Makrand Ranade & Ors. (2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 3388), especially on paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment, laying down the proposition of law that the order should reveal the application of mind by the said officer and sufficient apprehension that the petitioner would again engage in prejudicial activities, for which there is necessity of taking preventive action against him. 4. Learned APP in reply relied on the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone X, Mumbai. The learned APP submitted that the petitioner has created a terror in the minds of people at large and in the notice, the offences in which the petitioner was involved indicating his previous criminal record are mentioned. He submitted that the fact of his arrest and judicial custody is mentioned in the externment order. The learned APP submitted that the petitioner has created a terror in the minds of people at large and in the notice, the offences in which the petitioner was involved indicating his previous criminal record are mentioned. He submitted that the fact of his arrest and judicial custody is mentioned in the externment order. He relied on the externment order passed by Respondent No.1 and the order of the appellate authority confirming the same. 5. The order of externment is preventive which curtails the precious liberty of an individual. Hence, it is necessary for the externing authority to disclose all the facts which are against the externee to enable him to meet those charges. In the present case, the details of the offences and of his previous record are mentioned in the notice. The externee was given an opportunity to defend the notice and, thereafter the order u/s 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was passed. While passing the said order, Respondent No.1 has noted down that the externee at the relevant time i.e., on 26.4.2012 was in judicial custody in relation to C.R. No.1 of 2012 and on his release on bail or after the period of sentence, he should leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai. Respondent No.1 has given a finding that the externee was engaged in commission of various offences by using force and violence and has created terror in the minds of public and, therefore, he is likely to commit the offence of similar nature in future, if he gets an opportunity. Thus, there is subjective satisfaction of the authority that the release of the petitioner was imminent and he would again commit similar offences. Thus, considering these findings, the ratio laid down in Rajkishore Shivshankar Tiwari (supra) is not useful to the petitioner. Moreover, this Court, while granting bail by the order dated 24.7.2012, has directed that the petitioner should not enter the jurisdiction of Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai. The said fact was also taken into account by the appellate authority while confirming the said order. 6. Hence, we are of the opinion that the externment order passed by the respondents is not illegal and hence stands on merit. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.