JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his externment dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent no.2 - Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Amravati City, Amravati as well as the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by respondent no.1 – Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, whereby the respondent no.1 confirmed the order of externment in appeal. 4. The respondent no.2, by invoking the provisions of Section 56 Sub-section (1), clauses (a)&(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1951” for short), ordered externment of the petitioner and directed him to remove himself outside the limits of Amravati District for a period of two years. In order to arrive at subjective satisfaction to warrant the order of externment against the petitioner, the respondent no.2 relied upon five crimes registered against the petitioner at Nagpuri Gate and Badnera police station, Amravati. The details of the crimes are as under : Sr. Police Station Crime No. Date Sections Case status 1. Nagpuri Gate 391/2019 13.12.2019 294, 506(B), 34 IPC Pending in Court 2. Nagpuri Gate 305/2019 21.09.2019 4/25 of Arms Act, 135 of Mah. Police Act Pending in Court 3. Nagpuri Gate 404/2020 19.11.2020 3/25 of Arms Act, 135 of Mah. Police Act Pending in Court 4. Badnera 981/2019 12.12.2019 395, 342 IPC Pending in Court 5. Badnera 685/2020 10.11.2020 452, 307, 34 IPC, 4/25 of Arms Act Pending in Court 5. Besides above crimes, the respondent no.2 placed heavy reliance upon the confidential in-camera statements of two witnesses. On the basis of the crimes and the confidential in-camera statements of the witnesses, the respondent no.2 recorded a satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are fully covered under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951 and as such warranting his externment. 6. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of his externment dated 12.07.2021 before the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 found that subjective satisfaction for the externment of the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the objective material placed on record. His appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court. 7. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhangde learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. The respondent no.1 found that subjective satisfaction for the externment of the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of the objective material placed on record. His appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court. 7. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhangde learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H. D. Dubey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Perused the record and proceedings. 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that out the five crimes the crimes at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are for the offences under the Arms Act and under the Act of 1951. Learned Advocate submitted that these crimes could not have been considered for recording the subjective satisfaction. Learned Advocate submitted that there was no live link between the three remaining crimes inter se and the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 12.07.2021. Learned Advocate further submitted that in all the crimes the petitioner was released on bail. The bail orders were not taken into consideration by the respondent no.2. Similarly, there is no positive statement in the notice as well as in the order of externment that the petitioner had committed the breach of the conditions of the bail. As far as the statements of the two confidential witnesses are concerned, the learned Advocate submitted that the substance of these two statements of the confidential witnesses was neither stated in the notice dated 28.06.2021 nor in the order of externment dated 12.07.2021. Learned Advocate further submitted that the notice and the order are conspicuously silent about the due verification of these statements by the respondent no.2. Learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the reasonable opportunity was not offered to the petitioner to deal with those statements and the incident set out in those statements. Learned Advocate further submitted that on the basis of the three crimes which could have at the most been taken into consideration the petitioner has been directed to move himself out of the entire Amravati District and that too for a period of two years. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has not recorded any reason in support of this part of the order. Learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the order of externment suffers from the virus of excessiveness. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has not recorded any reason in support of this part of the order. Learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the order of externment suffers from the virus of excessiveness. Learned Advocate submitted that such order directly encroaches upon the fundamental right of the person and therefore, a great care is required to be taken. Learned Advocate submitted that the material relied upon could not be said to be an objective material to record a subjective satisfaction. Learned Advocate submitted that the order passed by the respondent no.2, if perused in entirely, would show total non application of mind. Learned Advocate submitted that respondent no.1 in appeal has failed to consider all the above aspects. Learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the order initially passed by the respondent no.2 and confirmed in appeal by the respondent no.1 cannot be sustained. 9. In support of his submission, learned Advocate for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the decision in the case of Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2022 ALL MR (Cri.) 761 (S.C.). It is held in this case that the subjective satisfaction arrived at on the basis of stale offences cannot be said to be just and reasonable. It is held that in order to warrant externment and thereby to make an inroad on fundamental rights of free movement of a citizen, the ingredients of Section 56 (1), clauses (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951 must be strictly established on the basis of the objective material. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents submitted that considering continuous involvement of the applicant in the crimes of similar nature from 2019 onwards, live link has been established. Learned APP submitted that the continuous involvement of the petitioner in the crimes till the date of issuance of show cause notice clearly indicates that his movements and acts are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to the person or property. Learned APP further submitted that in-camera statements of the confidential witnesses were sufficient to form an opinion by the respondent no.2 that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give statement against the petitioner on account of the apprehension in their mind with regard to the safety of their person or property. Learned APP further submitted that in-camera statements of the confidential witnesses were sufficient to form an opinion by the respondent no.2 that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give statement against the petitioner on account of the apprehension in their mind with regard to the safety of their person or property. Learned APP further submitted that the sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner by bringing the entire material to his notice before passing the externment order. It is further submitted that the statements of the in-camera confidential witnesses were duly verified by the superior officer and therefore, the apprehension of the manipulation of statements is baseless. It is further submitted that discussion on the point of bail orders granted in the crimes was not necessary considering the nature of the proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 11. In order to appreciate and deal with the rival submissions, I have gone through the record and proceedings. In this case, relying upon the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1951, the externment order is passed. Section 56 reads thus : “56. 11. In order to appreciate and deal with the rival submissions, I have gone through the record and proceedings. In this case, relying upon the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1951, the externment order is passed. Section 56 reads thus : “56. Removal of person about to commit offence:- (1) Whenever it shall appear in Greater Bombay and other areas for which a Commissioner has been appointed under Section 7 to the Commissioner and in other area or areas to which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the District Magistrate, or the Sub- Divisional Magistrate empowered by the State Government in that behalf- (a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or an offence punishable under chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or in the abetment of any such offence and when in the opinion of such officer witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property, or, (bb) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such person is acting or is about to act, (1) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Antisocial and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980, or (2) in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, or (c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or other wise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [ or such prejudicial act] or the outbreak or spread of such disease or [notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to remove himself outside such area or areas in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Officer or not and whether contiguous or not), by such route, and within such time as the officer may specify and not to enter or return to the said area or areas specified (hereinafter referred to as “the specified area or areas”) from which he was directed to remove himself]. (2) An Officer directing any person under sub-section (1) to remove himself from any specified area or areas in the State may further direct such person that during the period the order made against him is in force, as and when he resides in any other areas in the State, he shall report his place of residence to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station once in every month, even if there be no chance in his address. The said officer may also direct that, during the said period, as and when he goes away from the State, he shall, within ten days from the date of his departure from the State send a report in writing to the said officer, either by post or otherwise, of the date of his departure, and as and when he comes back to the State he shall, within ten days, from the date of his arrival in the State, report the date of his arrival to the officer in-charge of the police station nearest to the place where he may be staying.” 12. In this case, the provisions of Section 56(1), clauses (a) and (b) have been invoked. The ground under clause (a) indicates that movements or acts of any person must be causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. The ground under clause (b) indicates that to invoke the same, there must be reasonable ground for believing that the person sought to be externed is engaged or about to engage in the commission of an offence involving force or violence or offence punishable under Chapters XII, XVI, XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of any such offence. The second part of clause (b), which has to be read with the first part, clearly stipulates that the Competent Authority empowered to pass an order should form an opinion that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person only because of an apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or property. The conjoint reading of clauses (a) and (b) would indicate that in arriving at a subjective satisfaction as to the grounds, there must be objective material on record before the authority. 13. The conjoint reading of clauses (a) and (b) would indicate that in arriving at a subjective satisfaction as to the grounds, there must be objective material on record before the authority. 13. In Deepak Laxman Dongre’s case (supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the decision in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar .vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 372 . On consideration of this decision, it is held that the reasons which necessitate or justify passing of an extraordinary order of externment arise out of extraordinary circumstances. It is held that therefore, the strict compliance of Section 59 of the Act of 1951 is required to be made. It is further held that the order of externment deprive the citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. The order of externment in fact prevents the person even from staying in his own house along with his family members during subsistence of the externment order. It is, therefore, held that the subjective satisfaction must be arrived at on the basis of the objective material. 14. In order to consider the applicability of the proposition to the facts of the case on hand, it would be necessary to go through the show cause notice, the material relied upon in the show cause notice, which ultimately converged into the order of externment thereby recording subjective satisfaction on the basis of the said material. 15. It is to be noted that in all the crimes the petitioner was released on bail. The crimes at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 have been registered under the Arms Act and under the Act of 1951. Out of the five crimes the first crime was under the Indian Penal Code, committed in the year 2019. The crimes at Sr. Nos. 4 and 5 have been registered for commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is seen on perusal of the notice as well as the order that the respondent no. 2 has not at all considered the bail orders granted in favour of the petitioner. The crimes at Sr. Nos. 4 and 5 have been registered for commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is seen on perusal of the notice as well as the order that the respondent no. 2 has not at all considered the bail orders granted in favour of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that the prosecution has moved any application for cancellation of bail on the ground of breach of the conditions of the bail order or on the ground that the petitioner has threatened the witnesses in the cases. It is seen that two crimes under Indian Penal Code were registered in the year 2019. The third crime was registered in the year 2020. The charge-sheet in the last crime was filed on 10.11.2020. Perusal of the externment order would show that the specific details of the registration of the FIR in all the crimes have not been stated. In my view, in order to consider the argument on the point of live link from the date of the registration of the last crime till the date of the issuance of notice and the order of externment is very vital and important aspect. It is, therefore, seen that the order of externment was passed at least after 7-8 months from the date of filing of charge-sheet in the last crime. In my view, this is the most important aspect which will go to the root of the matter. On the basis of this, it can be said that strictly speaking in this case the live link was not established between the last crime and the order of externment. 16. The grievance is made that the substance of the statements of the confidential witnesses was not mentioned in the notice as well as in the externment order. Perusal of the notice would show that before issuance of this notice the powers were delegated by the respondent no.2 Deputy Commissioner to the respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner of Police for conducting enquiry. Perusal of the notice would show that cursory reference was made in the second last para of the notice with regard to the recording of the statements of the confidential witnesses. The substance of their statements was not briefly stated in the notice. Perusal of the notice would show that cursory reference was made in the second last para of the notice with regard to the recording of the statements of the confidential witnesses. The substance of their statements was not briefly stated in the notice. In my view, in order to grant a fair and reasonable opportunity to the person who is proposed to be externed, he has right to know the material relied upon against him as well as opportunity to effectively and meaningfully deal with the said material. Perusal of the externment order would show that in the externment order as well the notice the substance of the statements of the confidential witnesses was not mentioned. It is seen that on this count fair and reasonable opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to effectively and meaningfully deal with the relied material, before passing the order. In my view, on this ground also the dent is caused to the notice was well as to the externment order. 17. It is the case of the respondents that during the course of inquiry the respondent no. 3 found that the petitioner was a terror in the locality and therefore, the witnesses were not coming forward to depose against the petitioner. It is stated that the statements of the confidential witnesses substantiated the satisfaction of the respondent no.2 that the movements or acts of the petitioner were causing or calculated to cause, alarm, danger or harm to person or property. It is the case of the respondents that, therefore, the people were not coming forward in open to give statement against the petitioner. In my view, this is a very crucial and important aspect. On this aspect, the respondent no. 2 was required to make a personal inquiry and satisfy himself about the factual position. The respondent no. 2 has not stated the substance of the statements either in the notice or in the externment order. The question is whether the statements were duly verified by him or not. The statements contained in sealed envelope were opened in the Court at the time of argument. I have perused those statements. It is seen that these statements were recorded on 17.04.2021. Perusal of the statements would show that the statements are silent about the month and date of the alleged incident. The statements contained in sealed envelope were opened in the Court at the time of argument. I have perused those statements. It is seen that these statements were recorded on 17.04.2021. Perusal of the statements would show that the statements are silent about the month and date of the alleged incident. It is further seen that those confidential witnesses were called by Assistance Commissioner of Police on 11.06.2021 for verification of the statements. The endorsement to that effect is on the backside of the statements. It is seen that this exercise was also done by the respondent no.2 in a mechanical manner. The substance of the verification was written by somebody else and signed by respondent no. 3. There is no date below his signature. The verification of the statements does not show that either the respondent no.3 or respondent no. 2 visited the area and verified the correctness of the statements by making enquiry with the people in that area. Further perusal of the statements would show that on the first page of each statement there is endorsement ‘verified’ by the respondent no.2. There is no date below this endorsement. It has not been stated either in the notice or in the externment order that the respondent no. 2 personally call the witnesses and verified those statements. In my view, this exercise cannot be done in a mechanical manner. The statements of the confidential witness in the given set of facts, in my view, are the most important material to substantiate the subjective satisfaction. On this ground also the satisfaction is flawed. 18. It is to be noted that considering the serious apprehension placed on record on the basis of the material, one can say that the acts of the petitioner were found to be of the nature and kind stipulated under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Act of 1951. In my view, in this backdrop, respondent nos.2 and 3 would have invoked the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its application to the State of Maharashtra. Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the arrest of a person can be made to prevent a person from committing cognizable offence. If a police officer apprehends a design of a person to commit any cognizable offence, he can arrest him without order from the Magistrate. Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the arrest of a person can be made to prevent a person from committing cognizable offence. If a police officer apprehends a design of a person to commit any cognizable offence, he can arrest him without order from the Magistrate. It further provides that if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented, the said person can be detained in custody for a total period of thirty days form the date of arrest of such person as per the order of the Magistrate. In this case, considering the apprehension sought to be placed on record and invocation of Section 56(1) Clauses (a) and (b) of the Act of 1951, the respondent no.2 ought to have taken recourse to this remedy. If he had taken recourse to this remedy, then he would have been justified in passing the order on the basis of the said material. It is to be noted that the remedy provided under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. is a speedy remedy. The police officer is required to form an opinion that the person is likely to commit a cognizable offence and that said person cannot be prevented from committing the said offence unless and until he is arrested and detained, as provided under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, who is an independent authority, would definitely make objective analysis of the material on record before granting the prayer for detention of the concerned person. It is to be noted that after taking recourse to the remedy provided under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of the detention period, if the said person comes out and commits an offence then, in my view, it would be a strong circumstance justifying his externment. 19. As per the provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1951, the maximum period of externment is two years. In this case, the respondent no.2 has ordered externment of the petitioner from the entire Amravati District for a period of two years. It is to be noted that the externment order apart from making inroad on the fundamental right of the movement makes the said person live separate from his family. Similarly, the said order can deprive the said person of his livelihood. It is to be noted that the externment order apart from making inroad on the fundamental right of the movement makes the said person live separate from his family. Similarly, the said order can deprive the said person of his livelihood. In order to justify the externment for maximum period of two years, the authority is required to consider the objective material to record the subjective satisfaction on this point. The order passed by the respondent no.2 is silent on this point. No reasons have been recorded by the respondent no.2 to warrant externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from entire Amravati district. It is seen on perusal of the notice and order that most of the crimes committed by the petitioner were within the jurisdiction of Police Stations in Badnera and Amravati City. In view of this fact, the respondent no.2 was expected to record the reasons to warrant externment of the petitioner outside Amravati district. The order passed by the respondent no.2 and confirmed by the respondent no.1, therefore, suffers from virus of excessiveness. The law laid down on the point in the cases of Shaikh Mukhtyar S/o Mustafa Shaikh .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2017 ALL MR (Cri.) 268 and Bhagwat Dadasaheb Landge and another .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. (cri.) 546, would equally apply in this case. In my view, this would be one of the factors, which would weigh in favour of the petitioner. This would also reflect upon non-application of mind to the material on record to arrive at subjective satisfaction. In my view, therefore, the externment order passed by the respondent no.2 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment order, cannot be sustained. The orders deserve to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent no.2 externing the petitioner from Amravati district for a period of two years and the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 confirming the said order of externment, are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The writ petition stands disposed of.