Karnataka High Court
Rahul vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.202544 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
RAHUL S/O RAMCHANDRA SARVODAYA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O MILAN CHOWK, BENDI BAZAR, SHAHABAD
TQ. SHAHABAD, DIST. KALABURAGI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND SPECIAL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585101.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SHAHABAD SUB DIVISION, SHAHABAD,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
SHAHABAD TOWN POLICE STATION, SHAHABAD ,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER NO.5/.
UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/JªÀiï.J.f-2/PÀ.f/2026 DATED 24.06.2026 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A) B) PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND
PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ order or direction quashing the order no.5/.
UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ/JªÀiï.J.f-2/PÀ.f/2026 dated 24.06.2026 passed by
the respondent no.2 (Annexure-A)
b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case”
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that the petitioner was incriminated in 6 cases, out of
which 5 cases involved offences punishable under Section
78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act, in which the petitioner
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
pleaded guilty and paid the requisite fine and was
accordingly discharged from the proceedings. Further, in
criminal proceedings in SC No.92/2016( Crime No.97/2015
for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC), wherein
petitioner was accused No.9, the said proceedings was
acquitted vide judgment dated 01.06.2019 passed by the
Sessions Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that
though there are no criminal proceedings pending against
him as on date, the respondents have proceeded to pass
the impugned externment order, which is not only
contrary to the provisions contained in Sections 55 and 56
of the Karnataka Police Act, but also the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak v.
State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC Online SC 99) and
order of this Court in the case of Sachin M.R. v. the
State of Karnataka and Ors. (WP No.9727/2024),
which is reiterated by this Court in the case of Hussaini @
Ravi v. The State of Karnataka (WP No.201995/2026
dated 25.06.2026), in which it was held as under:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
” ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following
reliefs:
“1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order
quashing the impugned order dated 04.05.2026
passed by the 2nd respondent Sub-Divisional
Magistrate at vide KANDAYA/M.A.G/24/2025 at
Annexure-E;
2) Pass any such other order and further relief as
this court deems fit to grant under the circumstances
of the case, in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Additional Government Advocate for
the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that on 27.12.2025, respondent No.3 submitted a
proposal to respondent No.2 seeking externment of
the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is
involved in nine cases and was liable to be
externed/removed from Raichur to Aurad (B) of Bidar
District. In pursuance of such proposal, respondent
No.2 issued show-cause notice dated 10.03.2026, to
which the petitioner submitted a reply dated
09.04.2026 denying the various allegations made
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
against him. Pursuant to which, respondent No.2
passed the impugned externment order dated
04.05.2026, aggrieved by which the petitioner is
before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate
that the only ground on which the respondents have
proceeded to pass an order of externment against
the petitioner is by taking into account the pendency
of criminal cases against the petitioner. In this
context, it is relevant to state that mere pendency of
criminal cases against the petitioner, without any
other supporting material or without any other
cogent or valid reasons, could not have been made
the basis to pass an externment order against the
petitioner as held by the Apex Court in the case of
Deepak vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 99 which is followed by this
Court in the case of Sachin M.R. vs. The State of
Karnataka and Ors. in W.P.No.9727/2024 dated
05.04.2024 wherein it has held as under:
“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
an order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the second
respondent Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate invoking his power under Section 55 of
the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (‘Act’ for short)
externing the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere
with effect from 20.03.2024 up to 10.06.2024.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
2. Heard Mr.K.V.Sateesh Chandra, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Yoganna, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
3. The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident
of Mallahalli Village, Mysore District and claims to be
doing business as his avocation and is residing with
his family members. The petitioner during his stay at
Mysore appears to have got embroiled in several
cases. The cases pending against the petitioner as on
today is depicted to be Crime No.46 of 2021 before
the Varuna Police Station, Mysore for offences
punishable under Sections 504, 323, 143, 147 and
149 of the IPC. The said case is pending
investigation. The other crime is Crime No.167 of
2022 against before the same police station for the
same offences except in addition of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The third
crime is for the offence punishable under Section 107
of the Cr.P.C. which is stayed by the learned
Sessions Judge itself.
4. Things standing thus, it transpires that the 3rd
respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police submits
a report to the 2nd respondent recommending
passage of an order under Section 55 of the Act and
externing the petitioner. Based upon the said
recommendation, a show cause notice comes to be
issued by the 2nd respondent upon the petitioner
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
seeking to show cause as to why an order of
externment should not be passed against him and
directs him to appear before him on 20.03.2024 at
11.00 a.m. Though the show cause notice depicts the
dated as 20.02.2023, it appears to be a
typographical error, as it is signed by the 2nd
respondent on 18.03.2024 at 12.59 p.m. Therefore,
the date of appearance is taken as 20.03.2024.
5. The petitioner seeks to appear before him on
20.03.2024 only to receive an order of externment
externing the petitioner from Mysore to Davangere
from 20.03.2024 up to 10.06.2024. It is this order
that had driven the petitioner to this Court in the
subject petition having filed the same on
27.03.2024. After filing of the said petition, a
corrigendum comes to be issued on 28.03.2024
again moving the petitioner from Davangere to
Tumkur.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that the fundamental
right of the petitioner is taken away completely
contrary to the Act. The show cause notice so issued
upon the petitioner did not append to it the report
that was against him, which is mandatory in law. The
petitioner was though issued a show cause notice to
appear before the 2nd respondent on 20.03.2024,
even before he could submit anything, the order is
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
passed. He would contend that the provisions of the
Act are completely violated in the case at hand.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate
would submit that his submissions may be treated as
objections to the petition. He would further submit
that the facts narrated are all a matter of record. The
show cause notice is issued 16.03.2024 and the
order is passed on 20.03.2024. He would tacitly
admit the violation of the provisions of Act and the
orders passed by this Court on the issue.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel
and have perused the material on record.
9. Before embarking upon consideration of the case
on its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the
legal frame work under which order of externment
could be passed against any person. Chapter-II of
the Act deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of
persons convicted of certain offences. Section 54
deals with dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons
which is applicable to the case at hand. What is
germane to be noticed is Sections 55 to 60 and they
read as follows:-
“55. Removal of persons about to commit
offences.–Whenever it shall appear in the City
of Bangalore and other areas for which a
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
Commissioner has been appointed under
section 7 to the Commissioner, and in other
area or areas to which the Government may, by
notification in the official Gazette, extend the
provision of this section, to the District
Magistrate, or the Sub Divisional Magistrate
having jurisdiction and specially empowered by
the 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
(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
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
in writing duly served on him, or by beat of
drum or otherwise 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 the outbreak or spread of
such disease or to remove himself outside the
area within the local limits of his jurisdiction or
such area and any district or districts or any
part thereof contiguous thereto by such route
and within such time as the said officer may
specify and not to enter, or return to the said
place from which he was directed to remove
himself.
56. Removal of persons convicted of certain
offences.–If a person has been convicted at
any time either before or after the
commencement of this Act,–
(a) of an offence under Chapter XII, XVI or
XVII of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45
of 1860); or
(b) of an offence under section 6 of 13 of the
Mysore Mines Act, 1906 (Mysore Act 4 of 1906);
or
(c) of an offence under section 86 of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 5 of
1964); or
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
(d) twice of an offence under Section 19 of the
Mysore Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1944
(Mysore Act 33 of 1944) or any other
corresponding law in force in any area of the
State; or
(e) twice of an offence under the Suppression
of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act,
1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956); or
(f) twice of an offence under the Untouchability
(Offences) Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955);
or
(g) thrice of an offence within a period of three
years under section 78, 79 or 80 of this Act; or
(h) thrice of an offence within a period of three
years under sections 32, 34, 37 or 38A of the
Karnataka Excise Act 1965, (Karnataka Act 21
of 1966),the Commissioner, the District
Magistrate, or any Sub-divisional Magistrate
specially empowered by the Government in this
behalf, if he has reason to believe that such
person is likely again to engage himself in the
commission of an offence similar to that for
which he was convicted, may direct such
person to remove himself outside the area
within the local limits of his jurisdiction or such
area or any district or districts or any part
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
thereof contiguous thereto, by such route and
within such time as the said officer may specify
and not to enter or return to the place from
which he was directed to remove himself.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section
“an offence similar to that for which a person
was convicted” shall mean,–
(i) in the case of a person convicted of an
offence mentioned in clause (a), an offence
falling under any of the Chapters of the Indian
Penal Code mentioned in that clause; and
(ii) in the case of person convicted of an
offence mentioned in clauses (e) and (f), an
offence falling under the provisions of the Acts
mentioned respectively in the said clauses.
57. Period of operation of orders under section
54, 55 or 56.–A direction made under section
54, 55 or 56 not to enter any particular area or
such area and any district or districts or any
part thereof, contiguous thereto shall be for
such period as may be specified therein and
shall in no case exceed a period of two years
from the date on which it was made.
58. Hearing to be given before an order is
passed under section 54, 55 or 56.– (1) Before
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
an order under section 54, 55 or 56 is passed
against any person, the officer acting under any
of the said sections or any officer above the
rank of an Inspector authorised by that officer
shall inform the person in writing of the general
nature of the material allegations against him
and give him a reasonable opportunity of
tendering an explanation regarding them. If
such person makes an application for the
examination of any witness, produced by him,
the authority or officer concerned shall grant
such application and examine such witness,
unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the
authority or officer is of opinion that such
application is made for the purpose of vexation
or delay. Any written statement put in by such
person shall be filed with the record of the
case. Such person shall be entitled to appear
before the officer proceeding under this section
by a legal practitioner for the purposes of
tendering his explanation and examining the
witnesses produced by him.
(2) The authority or officer proceeding under
sub-section (1) may, for the purpose of
securing the attendance of any person against
whom any order is proposed to be made under
section 54, 55 or 56 require such person to
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
appear before him and to furnish a security
bond with or without sureties for such
attendance during the inquiry. If the person
fails to furnish the security bond as required or
fails to appear before the officer or authority
during the inquiry, it shall be lawful to the
officer or authority to proceed with the inquiry
and thereupon such order as was proposed to
be passed against him may be passed.
59. Appeal.–Any person aggrieved by an order
made under section 54, 55 or 56 may appeal to
the Government within thirty days from the
date of such order.
60. Finality of orders.–Any order passed under
section 54, 55 or 56 or by the Government
under section 59 shall not be called in question
in any court except on the ground that the
authority making the order or any officer
authorised by it had not followed the procedure
laid down in sub section (1) of section 58 or
that there was no material before the authority
concerned upon which it could have based its
order or on the ground that the said authority
was not of opinion that witnesses were
unwilling to come forward to give evidence in
public against the person in respect of whom an
order was made under section 55.”
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 55 deals with, removal of persons who are
about to commit offences. Whenever it appears in
the city of Bangalore or other areas that movements
or acts of any person are causing or calculated to
cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property,
such person can be removed from that area by
passing an order of externment. Section 56 deals
with removal of persons convicted of certain
offences. Section 57 deals with period of operation of
orders passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56.
Therefore, Section 57 mandates that the period
should be indicated in the order. Section 58
mandates that an opportunity of hearing should be
rendered to the person against whom the order is to
be passed under Sections 54, 55 or 56. Section 59
permits any person aggrieved by orders passed
under Sections 54, 55 or 56 to appeal to the
Government within 30 days from the date of such
order. This is the statutory frame work under which
orders of externment can be passed against any
person.
10. Section 58 needs to be considered with certain
emphasis. Section 58 is the provision which depicts
grant of reasonable opportunity to the person against
whom an order of externment would be passed.
Section 58 mandates that the Officer acting under
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
Sections 54, 55 and 56 shall inform the person in
writing of the general nature of material allegations
against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of
tendering an explanation regarding them. If such a
person makes an application for examination of any
witness the officer shall grant such application,
unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the
Officer is of the opinion that the application is filed
for the purpose of vexation or delay. Therefore, the
provision makes it mandatory for grant of reasonable
opportunity and also permits the person against
whom order of externment is to be passed to call any
witness and examine him by filing an application. If
this is the right conferred upon a person under
Section 58, the report on which he is to be externed
must be mandatorily supplied which would include
the notice so issued to the person against whom
externment order is pending issuance. There cannot
be any other interpretation of the aforesaid provision
as it is in the realm of grant of a reasonable
opportunity before taking away the fundamental
right of any person.
11. The case of the petitioner merits consideration on
the touchstone of the statute quoted hereinabove.
The three crimes pending against the petitioner are
as afore-narrated. The show cause notice referred to
all the three crimes. Two of the crime for the
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
offences under the IPC and the third for offences
punishable under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. He was
directed to appear on 20.03.2024. The notice is
dated 16.03.2024. It is signed on 18.03.2024 and
the petitioner is said to have been served and
directed for appearance within 2 days. The notice as
is required does not append the report by respondent
No.3. On the day on which the petitioner was
directed to appear, the impugned order is passed.
Verbatim similar to what was obtaining in the show
cause notice. There is not a whisper in the order
about the notice being sent or received by the
petitioner and his reply being submitted.
12. The 2nd respondent has blatantly and blissfully
ignored the rigour of the statute. It is trite that an
order of externment takes away the fundamental
right of a citizen. Merely because crimes are pending
against a person, he does not become a convict
unless he is convicted, therefore, all the rigour of the
statute must be complied with before any order of
externment can be passed against any citizen. The
show cause notice issued to the petitioner appears to
be a farce and issued only for the purpose of a make
believe compliance of the statute, not to afford any
opportunity, in real time, to the petitioner. The Apex
Court in the case of DEEPAK v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA (2022 SCC OnLine SC 99) has
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
considered the purport of the order of externment
and its impact upon the fundamental right of the
person. The Apex Court considers the Maharashtra
Police Manual which is in pari materia with the Act
and holds as follows:
“6. We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. Under clause (d) of Article 19(1) of the
Constitution of India, there is a fundamental right
conferred on the citizens to move freely throughout
the territory of India. In view of clause (5) of Article
19, State is empowered to make a law enabling the
imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of the right conferred by clause (d). An order of
externment passed under provisions of Section 56 of
the 1951 Act imposes a restraint on the person
against whom the order is made from entering a
particular area. Thus, such orders infringe the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d).
Hence, the restriction imposed by passing an order of
externment must stand the test of reasonableness.
7. Section 56 of the 1951 Act reads thus:
“56. Removal of persons 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
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, extend the provisions of this section, to the
District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
specially 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 Penal Code, 1860, 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
or 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
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
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 otherwise 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 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 change in
his address. The said officer may also direct that,
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
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.
(underline supplied)
8. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 56 shows
that there are distinct grounds specified under sub-
section (1) of Section 56 for passing an order of
externment. The said grounds are in clauses (a), (b),
(bb), and (c). In the present case, clauses (a) and
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the 1951 Act
have been invoked. The ground in clause (a) is that
the movements or acts of any person are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to a
person or property. The ground in clause (b) is 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 in IPC, or the abetment of any such offence.
Clause (b) is qualified by a condition that the
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
competent authority empowered to pass such order
should be of the opinion that 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. Obviously, the opinion must be formed on
the basis of material on record.
9. As observed earlier, Section 56 makes serious
inroads on the personal liberty of a citizen
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution
of India. In the case of Pandharinath Shridhar
Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, State of
Maharashtra1 in paragraph 9, this Court has held
that the reasons which necessitate or justify the
passing of an extraordinary order of externment
arise out of extraordinary circumstances. In the
same decision, this Court held that care must be
taken to ensure that the requirement of giving a
hearing under Section 59 of the 1951 Act is strictly
complied with. This Court also held that the
requirements of Section 56 must be strictly complied
with.
10. There cannot be any manner of doubt that an
order of externment is an extraordinary measure.
The effect of the order of externment is of depriving
a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement
throughout the territory of India. In practical terms,
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
such an order prevents the person even from staying
in his own house along with his family members
during the period for which this order is in
subsistence. In a given case, such order may deprive
the person of his livelihood. It thus follows that
recourse should be taken to Section 56 very
sparingly keeping in mind that it is an extraordinary
measure. For invoking clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of Section 56, there must be objective material on
record on the basis of which the competent authority
must record its subjective satisfaction that the
movements or acts of any person are causing or
calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons
or property. For passing an order under clause (b),
there must be objective material on the basis of
which the competent authority must record
subjective satisfaction 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 offences
punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC.
Offences under Chapter XII are relating to Coin and
Government Stamps. Offences under Chapter XVI
are offences affecting the human body and offences
under Chapter XVII are offences relating to the
property. In a given case, even if multiple offences
have been registered which are referred in clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of Section 56 against an individual,
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
that by itself is not sufficient to pass an order of
externment under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 56. Moreover, when clause (b) is sought to
be invoked, on the basis of material on record, the
competent authority must be satisfied that witnesses
are not willing to come forward to give evidence
against the person proposed to be externed by
reason of apprehension on their part as regards their
safety or their property. The recording of such
subjective satisfaction by the competent authority is
sine qua non for passing a valid order of externment
under clause (b).
11. On 2nd June 2019, the Police Inspector of
Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna submitted a
proposal to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at
Badnapur for permitting detention of the appellant
for a period of 15 days by invoking provisions of sub-
section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC (as inserted by
the Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1981). In the said
proposal, reliance was placed on the same six
offences registered against the appellant, which were
made a part of the show-cause notice dated 7th July
2020 on the basis of which the impugned order of
externment was passed. The police arrested the
appellant and produced him on 2nd June 2020 before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class along with
the aforesaid proposal. By the order dated 2nd June
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
2020 (Annexure P-4), the learned Judicial Magistrate
rejected the said proposal to detain the appellant and
directed his immediate release subject to the
condition of attending the concerned Police Station
between 10 am to 1 pm till 9th June 2020.
12. The power under sub-section (3) of Section 151
as amended for the State of Maharashtra is to arrest
a person on the basis of an apprehension that he is
likely to continue the design to commit, or is likely to
commit a cognizable offence after his release and
that the circumstances of the case are such that his
presence is likely to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The learned Judicial
Magistrate rejected the proposal to keep the
appellant in detention for 15 days. There is nothing
placed on record to show that the said order was
challenged by the police. After having failed to satisfy
the learned Judicial Magistrate about the necessity of
detaining the appellant for 15 days, the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer initiated action of externment
against him by issuing a show-cause notice on 7th
July 2020. It is not the case made out in the show
cause notice dated 7th July 2020 that after release of
the appellant on 2nd June 2020, the appellant
indulged in the commission of any offence or any
other objectionable activity.
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
13. Considering the nature of the power under
Section 56, the competent authority is not expected
to write a judgment containing elaborate reasons.
However, the competent authority must record its
subjective satisfaction of the existence of one of the
grounds in sub-section (1) of Section 56 on the basis
of objective material placed before it. Though the
competent authority is not required to record
reasons on par with a judicial order, when
challenged, the competent authority must be in a
position to show the application of mind. The Court
while testing the order of externment cannot go into
the question of sufficiency of material based on
which the subjective satisfaction has been recorded.
However, the Court can always consider whether
there existed any material on the basis of which a
subjective satisfaction could have been recorded. The
Court can interfere when either there is no material
or the relevant material has not been considered.
The Court cannot interfere because there is a
possibility of another view being taken. As in the
case of any other administrative order, the judicial
review is permissible on the grounds of mala fide,
unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
14. In the facts of the case, the non-application of
mind is apparent on the face of the record as the
order dated 2nd June 2020 of the learned Judicial
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
Magistrate is not even considered in the impugned
order of externment though the appellant specifically
relied upon it in his reply. This is very relevant as the
appellant was sought to be detained under sub-
section (3) of Section 151 of Cr.PC for a period of 15
days on the basis of the same offences which are
relied upon in the impugned order of externment. As
mentioned earlier, from 2nd June 2020 till the
passing of the impugned order of externment, the
appellant is not shown to be involved in any
objectionable activity. The impugned order appears
to have been passed casually in a cavalier manner.
The first three offences relied upon are of 2013 and
2018 which are stale offences in the sense that there
is no live link between the said offences and the
necessity of passing an order of externment in the
year 2020. The two offences of 2020 alleged against
the appellant are against two individuals. The first
one is the daughter of the said MLA and the other is
the said Varsha Bankar. There is material on record
to show that the said Varsha Bankar was acting as
per the instructions of the brother of the said MLA.
The said two offences are in respect of individuals.
There is no material on record to show that
witnesses were not coming forward to depose in
these two cases. Therefore, both clauses (a) and (b)
of subsection (1) of Section 56 are not attracted.
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
15. As the order impugned takes away fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of
India, it must stand the test of reasonableness
contemplated by clause (5) of Article 19. Considering
the bare facts on record, the said order shows non-
application of mind and smacks of arbitrariness.
Therefore, it becomes vulnerable. The order cannot
be sustained in law.
16. Section 58 of the 1951 Act reads thus:
“58. Period of operation of orders under section 55,
56, 57 and 57A – A direction made under section 55,
56, 57 and 57A not to enter any particular area or
such area and any District or Districts, or any part
thereof, contiguous thereto, or any specified area or
areas as the case maybe, shall be for such period as
may be specified therein and shall in no case exceed
a period of two years from the date on which the
person removes himself or is removed from the area,
District or Districts or part aforesaid or from the
specified area or areas as the case may be”.
17. On a plain reading of Section 58, it is apparent
that while passing an order under Section 56, the
competent authority must mention the area or
District or Districts in respect of which the order has
been made. Moreover, the competent authority is
required to specify the period for which the
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
restriction will remain in force. The maximum period
provided for is of two years. Therefore, an
application of mind on the part of the competent
authority is required for deciding the duration of the
restraint order under Section 56. On the basis of
objective assessment of the material on record, the
authority has to record its subjective satisfaction that
the restriction should be imposed for a specific
period. When the competent authority passes an
order for the maximum permissible period of two
years, the order of externment must disclose an
application of mind by the competent authority and
the order must record its subjective satisfaction
about the necessity of passing an order of
externment for the maximum period of two years
which is based on material on record. Careful perusal
of the impugned order of externment dated 15th
December 2020 shows that it does not disclose any
application of mind on this aspect. It does not record
the subjective satisfaction of the respondent no. 2 on
the basis of material on record that the order of
externment should be for the maximum period of
two years. If the order of externment for the
maximum permissible period of two years is passed
without recording subjective satisfaction regarding
the necessity of extending the order of externment
to the maximum permissible period, it will amount to
imposing unreasonable restrictions on the
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
fundamental right guaranteed under clause (d) of
Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court clearly holds that externment is not
an ordinary measure and must be resorted to
sparingly, only in extraordinary circumstances, as an
order of externment takes away the fundamental
right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the Apex Court has
clearly held that it must stand the test of
reasonableness as contemplated in Clause (5) of
Article 19 of Constitution of India. Since the
interpretation of the Apex Court of the provisions of
the Maharashtra Police Act are in pari materia with
the Act, it would become applicable to the case at
hand. The crux of the provision is that there should
be minimum proximity or necessity for passing an
order of externment against any person, in the case
at hand the petitioner. The act of the 2nd respondent
is undoubtedly contrary to the statue and in blissful
ignorance of the law.
13. This Court has time and again laid down in the
cases of SRI.T.ROOPESH KUMAR @ ROOPI VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Petition No.392 of
2023 dated 21.03.2023 and MAHANTAYYA VS. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA in Writ Petition No.104804 of
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
2023 dated 08.08.2023 that the rigour of the statute
as quoted supra must be adhered to while taking
away the fundamental right of movement of the
person. These judgments were rendered following
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
DEEPAK supra. All these are given a complete go-by
by the 2nd respondent. What is more shocking is
after the passage of the order of externment against
the petitioner, externing him from Mysore to
Davangere, on 20.03.2024 a corrigendum is issued,
modifying the externment from Davangere to
Tumkur, on 28.03.2024, the petitioner is treated as a
chattel in the hands of the 2nd respondent and his
personal liberty is eroded in a cavalier manner. The
2nd respondent cannot treat his office as his
personal fiefdom and misuse the power conferred
upon him under the Act. He is bound by the rule of
law.
14. There are several safeguards for passage of an
order of externment upon the person against whom
it is sought to be passed. These are procedural
safeguards. It is trite that procedural safeguards are
the life blood of liberty, which cannot be treated or
taken away in the manner that it is done in the case
at hand. It is also to be noticed that the orders
passed by this Court and the Apex Court are
deliberately or blissfully ignored by the 2nd
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
respondent, as there is not even a semblance of
compliance either of the statute or the orders passed
by this Court. Therefore, the State/the 2nd
respondent is hereby admonished that any repetition
of the kind of the orders that is passed in deliberate
defiance to the orders passed by the Apex Court or
this Court would fringe on the borders of
contumacious contempt on the part of the State.
Therefore, such acts iterated through such orders
would be viewed seriously. It thus becomes
necessary to direct the Chief Secretary of the State,
to take note of the situation, and issue a circular for
appropriate passage of the orders of externment,
bearing in mind the observations made in the course
of the order. This would prevent abuse of the office
and mushrooming of cases filed before this Court.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20.03.2024, in
MYSAC/MAG/MAG/43/2024 E – 384634, passed by
the second respondent is hereby quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in
accordance with law, in the event it becomes
necessary in law and if it becomes necessary, action
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
shall be taken, bearing in mind the observations
made in the course of the order.
(iv) The Registry is directed to
communicate/transmit a copy of this order to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka for its
compliance, forthwith.
(v) The compliance of issuance of a circular shall be
made within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of the order and shall report such compliance to the
Registry of this Court in the case at hand.”
5. So also, in the recent judgment of this Court in
the case of Rachappa vs. The State of Karnataka
and Ors. passed in W.P.No.7930/2026 dated
18.03.2026 it has held as under:
“The petitioner has called in question the externment
order dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2
under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963
(for short “the Act”) whereby the petitioner has been
externed from Chamarajanagar District to Kalaburagi
District for a period of six months.
2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are
that respondent No.3 submitted a report alleging
that the petitioner had constructed a house illegally
within the jurisdiction of Shri Malemahadeshwara
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
Swamy Kshetra Development Authority and was
illegally storing liquor in the said house and selling
the same to the public at hiked prices. It was also
alleged that the petitioner was using local youth to
assist him in the illegal sale of liquor. Based on the
said report, a criminal case came to be registered
against the petitioner. It is further alleged that there
are three other criminal cases pending against the
petitioner.
3. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.2
initiated proceedings against the petitioner under
Section 55 of the Act in proceedings bearing No.
M.A.G(GA)CR/23/2025. A show cause notice under
Section 58 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and
the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of
hearing. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the
impugned order directing externment of the
petitioner from Chamarajanagar District to
Kalaburagi District for a period of six months.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the impugned order is illegal and
arbitrary. He would submit that the order is passed
solely on the ground that three criminal cases are
pending against the petitioner under the provisions
of the Excise Act, 1965. Mere pendency of criminal
cases, without there being any material
demonstrating that the petitioner’s activities are
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
prejudicial to public order or public safety, cannot
constitute a ground for invoking the drastic power of
externment. He would further contend that the
impugned order does not assign cogent reasons and
therefore the order is not a speaking order. In
support of his contention, reliance is placed on the
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P. No.871/2023 DD.2.3.2023.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate would submit that the petitioner is involved
in illegal sale of liquor and that his activities were
creating nuisance and disturbance in the locality. It is
contended that after issuing notice under Section 58
of the Act and after affording an opportunity of
hearing, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned
order and therefore the same does not warrant
interference.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material placed on record.
7. The power of externment conferred under Section
55 of the Act is an extraordinary measure which
directly affects the fundamental right of a citizen to
reside and move freely. Such power has to be
exercised sparingly and strictly in accordance with
the statutory requirements.
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
8. A careful perusal of the impugned order indicates
that respondent No.2 has primarily relied upon the
fact that three criminal cases are pending against the
petitioner under the provisions of the Excise Act,
1965. Except referring to the pendency of the said
cases and the report submitted by respondent No.3,
the order does not disclose any material to
demonstrate that the presence of the petitioner in
the district is hazardous to public order or that
witnesses are unwilling to come forward to depose
against him due to fear.
9. Mere allegations that the petitioner is illegally
storing or selling liquor would not, by themselves,
attract the provisions of the Act, particularly Section
55 of the Act. The power of externment under
Section 55 of the Act is an extraordinary preventive
measure and can be invoked only when the
competent authority is satisfied that the movements
or acts of a person are causing alarm, danger, or
harm to persons or property, and that witnesses are
not willing to come forward to give evidence against
such person by reason of apprehension for their
safety.
10. Externment proceedings cannot be resorted to as
a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. If the
allegation is that the petitioner is involved in illegal
sale of liquor, the appropriate course for the
– 37 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
authorities is to proceed against him under the
relevant provisions of the Excise law. Preventive
action under Section 55 of the Act cannot be invoked
merely on the basis of such allegations unless there
is cogent material showing that the activities of the
person pose a threat to public peace and safety.
11. It is well settled that mere pendency of criminal
cases cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for
passing an order of externment. The authority
exercising powers under Section 55 of the Act is
required to record a subjective satisfaction, based on
tangible material, that the movements or acts of the
person are causing alarm, danger or harm to persons
or property and that witnesses are not willing to
come forward to give evidence in public due to
apprehension. The impugned order is conspicuously
silent on these aspects. In the present case, the
allegations relate to illegal storage and sale of liquor.
The petitioner is already facing prosecution in the
pending criminal cases. The criminal law is set in
motion and the petitioner is subject to trial before
the competent Court.
12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No.871/2023 has held that mere registration or
pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole basis
to invoke the drastic power of externment unless the
– 38 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
order reflects application of mind and records specific
reasons indicating threat to public peace and order.
13. In the present case, though a show cause notice
under Section 58 of the Act was issued and an
opportunity of hearing was afforded, the impugned
order does not disclose any independent application
of mind nor does it assign cogent reasons to justify
externment of the petitioner from the district. Mere
registration of pendency of criminal cases cannot be
the sole basis for externment. The authority must
show material indicating that the public at large are
afraid to depose against a person. This Court cannot
ignore the fact that externment is a drastic measure
and therefore, the order must be preceded by
specific reasons demonstrating the requisite
ingredients of Section 55 of the Act.
14. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order suffers from non-application of mind
and absence of reasons, and is liable to be interfered
with.
15. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
– 39 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
(ii) The externment order dated 24.12.2025 passed
respondent No.2 in proceedings No.
M.A.G(GA)CR/23/2025, evidenced at Annexure-A, is
hereby quashed.
(iii) It is however open to the respondents to take
appropriate action in accordance with law, if
circumstances so warrant in future.”
6. In the instant case, the reasons assigned by
the respondents for the purpose of directing
externment of the petitioner are as under:
“PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ
CA±À-1:
F ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÀ°è C§PÁj G¥Á¢üÃPÀPë g
À ÀÄ gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ
gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÉÇð¸ï PÁAiÉÄÝ 1963 PÀ®A 55 gÀrAiÀÄ°è
JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀg£
À ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ fêÀPÀÌÉ C¥ÁAiÀÄPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ
¹ºÉZï gÀ¸ÁAiÀĤPÀ §¼À¹ PÀ®§ÉgPÀÉ É (¸ÉÃA¢) PÉÊ ºÉAqÀª£
À ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÀÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå £ÀµÀÖ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀgPÀ ÁgÀzÀ DzÁAiÀÄ £ÀµÀÖ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ZÀlĪÀnPÉU¼
À °
À è
¤gÀAvÀgª
À ÁV vÉÆqÀV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ – ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ°è M§â
PÀAlPÀ ¥ÁæAiÀÄ£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É
– 40 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ fêÀ PÁ¥ÁqÀĪÀ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀgPÀ ÁgÀzÀ DzÁAiÀÄ £ÀµÀÖ vÀqAÉ iÀÄĪÀ
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ CªÀ£À C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ZÀjvÀæÉ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ f®è¬
É ÄAzÀ
UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæyð¹gÀÄvÁÛg.ÀÉPÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥Éưøï PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1963 (Karnataka Police Act, 1963)
– PÀ®A 56 (ºÉZï) «ªÀgu
À ÉPÀ®A 56 ºÉZï PÀ£ÁðlPÀ C§PÁj PÁAiÉÄÝ 1965gÀ (PÀ£ÁðlPÀ C§PÁj PÁAiÉÄÝ
1956gÀ PÀ®A 21) PÀ®A 32/34/37 ºÁUÀÆ 38gÀ ªÉÄÃgÀU
É ÀÉ C¥ÀgÁzsPÀ ÁÌV ªÀÄÆgÀÄ
ªÀµð
À UÀ¼À CªÀ¢Aü iÀÄ°è ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸À® : CxÀªÁ ¹zÀÞ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ°è DAiÀÄÄPÀg
Û ÄÀ , f¯Áè
zÀAqÁ¢üPÁj CxÀªÁ F ¸ÀA§Azsz
À °
À è ¸ÀgPÀ ÁgÀ¢AzÀ «±ÉõÀªÁV
±ÀPU
ÀÛ Éƽ¸À¯ÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà G¥À «¨sÁUÀzÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CAvÀºÀ ªÀåQAÛ iÀÄ
£Àq-É £ÀÄr, ZÀlĪÀnPÉU¼
À ÀÄ CxÀªÁ CªÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ EgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉU¼
À ÄÀ
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ±ÁAw, ¸ÀÄgÀPvÀë É CxÀªÁ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ »vÀPÉÌ C¥ÁAiÀÄPÁjAiÀiÁVªÉ
JAzÀÄ ¥Éǰøï C¢üPÁjUÀÉ vÀÈ¦Û GAmÁzÀ°è, D ªÀåQAÛ iÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀª
æ ÀÄ
PÉÊUÉƼÀ§
î ºÀÄzÀÄ.
CA±À-2 CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀPÀÌ,É «ªÀgU
À ¼
À ÀÄ F PɼV
À £ÀAwzÉ.
1) ºÀĸÉä @ gÀ« vÀAzÉ ªÀiÁgÀ¥
É Àà, ªÀAiÀĸÀÄ:ì 32 ªÀµð
À , eÁw: J¸ï.¹. ªÀÈwÛ:
PÀÆ°PÉ®¸À, ¸ÁQ£ï ªÀÄAUÀ¼ª
À ÁgÀ¥ÃÉ mÉ, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ EvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ E°èAiÀĪÀgU
ÉÀ ÀÉ
MlÄÖ 12 ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À UÀ¼ÀÄ E£ÀÆß «ZÁgÀtAÉ iÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀz
Û .É
2) ««zsÀ C¥ÁgÁ¢üvÀ PÀÈvÀåU¼
À À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è F DgÉÆævÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ
gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUg
À z
À À ««zsÀ C§PÁj oÁtÉU¼
À °
À è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ ¥À²ª
Ñ ÄÀ
oÁtÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀª
Û .É
3) ¸Àzj
À AiÀĪÀ£ÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ fêÀPÀÌÉ C¥ÁAiÀÄPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ
¹ºÉZï PÀ®§ÉgPÀÉ É ªÀiÁr (¸ÉÃA¢) PÉÊ ºÉAqÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÀÉ
ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ZÀlĪÀnPÉU¼
À °
À è vÉÆqÀV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå
– 41 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀgPÀ ÁgÀzÀ DzÁAiÀÄPÀÌÉ £Àµª
ÀÖ ÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÀÈvÀåUÀ¼°
À è vÉÆqÀVgÀĪÀ
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ°è M§â PÀAlPÀ ¥ÁæAiÀÄ£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£.É (¥ÉÇÃmÉÆà ®UÀw¹
Û zÉ)
vÀº¹
À ïÁÝgÀ gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ
EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ªÀÄÄAeÁUÀÈvÀ PÀª
æ ÀĪÁV PÀ®A 109 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ CrAiÀÄ°è 01
¥ÀPæ g
À t
À ªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR®¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛg.ÀÉ EAvÀºÀ M§â ªÀåQAÛ iÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÄAeÁUÀÈvÀ
P˻
æ ÀĪÁV 9 ¥ÀPæ g À UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ Karnataka Excise Act of 1965
À t
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ IPC 1860 gÀ°è 02 ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À UÀ¼ÀÄ MlÄÖ 12 ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À UÀ¼ÀÄ zÁR¯ÁV ªÀ
¥ÀPæ g
À t
À UÀ¼£
À ÀÄß CªÀ¯ÉÆÃQ¹zÀgÀÉ ¸Àzj
À ªÀåQÛ AiÀiÁªÀ PÀt
ë zÀ¯Áèzg
À ÀÆ ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ
fêÀPÀÌÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀ媸
À ÉÜ zsPÀ ÀÌAÉ iÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JA§ CA±À E°è PÀAqÀÄ
§gÀÄvÀz
Û .É
¥Àwæ ªÁ¢ ªÀPÃÀ ®gÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09-04-2026 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀPÁ®vÀÄÛ £ÁªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°¹
è
DPÉÃë ¥ÀtU
É ¼
À À£ÀÄß ¸À°¹
è gÀÄvÁÛg.ÀÉ ¸Àzj
À C§PÁj C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÀU
É ÀÉ f®èAÉ iÀÄ°è £Àqz
É À C§PÁj E¯ÁSÉ vÀ¥Á¸ÀtÉ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è
ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj PÀ®§ÉgPÀÉ É PÉÊ ºÉAqÀª£
À ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸Àªð
À d¤PÀgÀ
ªÀiÁ£ÀªÀ fêÀPÀÌÉ C¥ÁAiÀÄPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F J¯Áè ¥ÀPæ g
À t
À UÀ¼£
À ÄÀ ß
UÀªÀÄ£Àz°
À j
è ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®§ÉgPÀÉ É PÉÊ ºÉAqÀª£
À ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀĪÀ
ZÀlĪÀnPÉU¼
À ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå £ÀµÀÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀgPÀ ÁgÀzÀ CzÁAiÀÄ
£ÀµÀÖªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ±ÁAw, ¸ÀĪÀåªÀ¸ÉÜUÉÀ ¨sAÀ UÀ GAlÄ
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀ媸
À ÜÉ UÉÀ
ºÁUÀÆ ±ÁAwUÀÉ zsPÀ ÀÌAÉ iÀiÁUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JA§ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ C§PÁj
E¯ÁSÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ££
À ÀÄß 03 wAUÀ¼À ªÀgU
ÀÉ ÀÉ gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ f®è¬
É ÄAzÀ
§ÃzÀgï f®èAÉ iÀÄ OgÀzÀ (©) vÁ®ÆQUÀÉ UÀr¥ÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ
»£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è. ¸Àzj
À ¥À¸
æ ÁÛª£
À AÉ iÀÄ°è «ªÀj¸À¯ÁzÀ CA±ÀU¼
À £
À Áßzsj
À ¹ F PɼV
À £ÀAvÉ
DzÉñÀ.”
7. As can be seen from the aforesaid reasons
assigned by the respondents, except stating that
– 42 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026
HC-KAR
criminal cases are pending against the
petitioner, there are absolutely no other
reasons, much less valid or sufficient
reasons/grounds to direct externment of the
petitioner and in the absence of legal or acceptable
reasons for directing externment of the petitioner,
mere pendency of criminal cases against him
simplicitor by itself could not have been made the
basis nor relied upon by the respondents to pass the
impugned externment order which deserves to be set
aside by imposing certain conditions upon the
petitioner.
8. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed
by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner and
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raichur vide Annexure-
E is hereby quashed, subject to the petitioner not
indulging in any illegal activities under
any circumstances whatsoever.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents
to proceed against the petitioner in the future in
accordance with law. ”
– 43 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
3. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that there is no merit in the petition and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate
that the respondents have failed to consider and
appreciate that as on the date of the impugned order, no
criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner.
Further, even assuming that there are certain criminal
antecedents of the petitioner, in the light of principles laid
down by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid
cases, mere pendency of the criminal proceedings or
criminal antecedents could not be made the basis nor
relied upon by the respondents to pass the impugned
externment order, which deserves to be set aside by
imposing certain conditions upon the petitioner.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
– 44 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5051
WP No. 202544 of 2026HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated
24.06.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent –
the Superintendent of Police and Special
Executive Magistrate, Kalaburagi district is
hereby quashed, subject to the petitioner
not indulging in any illegal activities under
any circumstances whatsoever.
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
respondents to proceed against the
petitioner in the future in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
CT:SI
