Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
1 WP-44179-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44179 of 2025
RAVI VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deepesh Mahawar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.S. Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the
respondent No.3-Collector/District Magistrate Khandwa (M.P.) whereby the
petitioner has been externed from District Khandwa and its neighbouring
districts for a period of one year in terms of Section 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. He is further aggrieved by the order passed by
the Commissioner Indore Division dated 31.10.2025 whereby appeal
preferred by petitioner was dismissed.
2. It is a case of the petitioner that in all five criminal cases were
registered against him and out of which, in three cases, he has already been
acquitted. These are (i) Crime No. 283 of 2013; (ii) Crime No. 238 of 2013
and (iii) Crime No. 30 of 2019. The authorities have taken note of the
aforesaid criminal cases while preparing the report which was forwarded to
the District Magistrate Khandwa. It is argued that the opinion has been found
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
2 WP-44179-2025
based upon the old cases which are registered against the petitioner. There is
only one case which is registered against the petitioner in the year 2025 for
the offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS vide Crime No. 238
of 2025 at Police Station Mundi District Khandwa. There is no material
placed on record by the respondents-authorities to show that the alleged
offences committed by the petitioner are having close proximity enabling the
initiation of externment proceedings.
3. Petitioner’s counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs State of M.P. and
others reported in (2009) 4 MPLJ 434 and the order passed in the case of
Rajesh Nagpure vs State of M.P. and others : WP No. 22524 of 2024 decided
on 14.10.2024 in support of his arguments. It is submitted that the
recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police in the report that due
to threat of the petitioner, none of the witnesses are coming forward to
depose against him could not be made out as the names of any of witnesses
are not mentioned in the report. It is argued that in terms of Section 5(b) of
the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, two conditions for passing of
externment order are required to be satisfied. Since the conditions mentioned
in Section 5(b) are not fulfilled; the externment order against the petitioner
could not have been passed. It is further argued that old cases cannot be
considered for the purpose of passing externment order because it is to be
considered that commission of offence or abetment of such offence by a
person must have a very close proximity to the date on which the order is
proposed to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. On these
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
3 WP-44179-2025
grounds, he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents/State has filed reply to the
petition supporting the impugned orders. It is contended that the petitioner
was involved in various crimes such as fighting, assault, molestation, use of
obscene language, threat to kill etc. and tends to disburse the peace-loving
citizens; therefore, the action was required to be taken against him at
appropriate time preventing its flare up in the wide area. Looking to the
object and reasons of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, as some
effective preventive action was required to be taken by the authorities, the
impugned action is taken against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police
District Khandwa made recommendation dated 26.05.2025 to the District
Magistrate Khandwa to initiate proceedings for externment against the
petitioner in terms of Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The District
Magistrate issued a show cause notice on 27.05.2025 under Section 8(1) of
the Adhiniyam, 1990 asking the petitioner to appear on 05.06.2025. The
petitioner appeared and filed reply on 26.06.2025 and thereafter the
impugned externment order passed. Full opportunity of hearing was granted
to the petitioner prior to passing of the order. The petitioner is a habitual
offender and is continuously engaged in commission of offences. The
Superintendent of Police while recommending the case of the petitioner for
initiation of externment proceedings considered five criminal cases
registered against him as also one preventive measure taken against him
under Section 110 of CrPC. The petitioner was found involved in criminal
cases and found to be threat to the society at large. An attempt was made by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
4 WP-44179-2025
the petitioner to disburse peace and create law and order situation. There is a
threat of the petitioner in the entire society. It is submitted that the petitioner
is a criminal mentality person and owing to threat of the petitioner, people
are not coming forward to depose against him. Therefore, the argument
advanced that there is no material with the authorities to show that the
witnesses are coming forward to depose against the petitioner, is not
available to him. Though the petitioner was granted acquittal in two cases
and third case was settled in the Lok Adalat by the petitioner but that does
not amount to clear acquittal. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner as well
as his continuous involvement in criminal cases, the petitioner’s externment
was in public interest and was required to be passed. The externment
proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner on the basis of the
offences committed under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS which are
registered at Crime No. 238 of 2025. Previous cases were considered for the
purpose of forming an opinion and to point out that the petitioner is a person
of criminal mentality having a long criminal history. Therefore, the
externment order is rightly passed by the authorities. The only requirement
under the Adhiniyam, 1990 was to provide an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner prior to passing the externment order and the same was given. On
these grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted position that the recommendation of the
Superintendent of Police was made on 26.05.2025 to the District Magistrate
Khandwa regarding initiation of proceedings for externment against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
5 WP-44179-2025
petitioner in terms of Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,
1990. The Superintendent of Police while forming an opinion has taken note
of five criminal cases against the petitioner at Police Station Mundi District
Khandwa. They are : (i) Crime No. 283 of 2023; (ii) Crime No. 238 of 2017;
(iii) Crime No. 30 of 2019; (iv) Crime No. 228 of 2024 and (v) Crime No.
238 of 2025. One preventive proceeding initiated against him under Section
110 of CrPC was also taken note of. The Superintendent of Police District
Khandwa has formed an opinion based upon the criminal cases registered
against petitioner which is reflected from the document (Annexure R/1) filed
by the respondents. Relevant portion of the recommendation of the
Superintendent of Police is reproduced as under :
उपरो वषय म लेख है , क अनावेदक र व पता गयाद न वमा जाित कहार उ
35 साल िनवासी बीड थाना मूदं का ीमान के यायालय को वण का अिधकार
ा है अनावेदक र व वमा लगभग 12 वष से अपरािधक गित विधय म संल न
होकर े क जनता म डर भय व आतंक का वातावरण बना रखा है अनावेदक का
समाज म इतना आतंक है क उसके व कोई भी रपोट करने व गवाह दे ने म
डरते है अपराध उसक जीवन शैली बन गई है इसके साथ ह शराब पीना व पीलाकर
मारपीट कर जान से मारने क धमक दे ने एवं चोर करने का आदतन अपराधी है
आम लोगो से झगडा कर शांती भंग कर समाज म भय बनाता है जससे उसके
व यायालय म चल रहे करणो म कोई गवाह न दे सके जससे उसके
अपरािधक कृ य म सजा दलाये जाने से अिभयोजन को सफलता नह िमल पा
रह है इसके व समय समय पर क गई ितबंधा मक कायवाह भी बेअसर रह
है जला खंडवा संवेदनशील है यहा राजनैितक गित विधया हमेशा जार रहती है
अनावेदक र व वमा थाना मूदं जला खंडवा क अपरािधक गित विधयो को दे खकर
अ य छोटे मोटे अपराधी भी उसका अनुसरण करने लगते है । जससे समाज म लोक
यव था व त होने क संभावना है ।
—
अतः र व पता गयाद न वमा जाित कहार उ 35 साल िनवासी बीड क अपरािधक
गित विधयो पर अंकुश लगाने हे तु समाज को शांितपूण वातावरण उपल ध कराने
लोकशांती व यव था को कायम रखने, म हला अपराध क रोकथाम एवं चोर के
अपराध के रोकथाम के िलये अनावेदक र व वमा के व म य दे श रा य सुर ा
अिधिनयम 1990 क धारा 5 के अंतगत जला खंडवा, खरगोन, बडवानी, हरदा,
बुरहानपुर, दे वास व इं दौर क राज व सीमाओ म वेश के िलये एक वष के िलये
िनषेधा ा जार करने का क कर।
7. From perusal of the aforesaid, it transpires that on the recommendation
of Superintendent of Police, Khandwa, the District Magistrate Khandwa has
passed the order of externment against the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
6 WP-44179-2025
8. The M.P. Rajya Surakasha Adhiniyam, 1990 has been enacted to
provide for the security of the State, maintenance of public order and certain
other matters connected therewith. Section 5 thereof under which the order
of externment has been passed, is important and quoted hereinbelow –
“5. Removal of persons about to commit offence. – Whenever it
appears to the District Magistrate –
(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 reasonably 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 or under section 506 or 509 of the Penal Code, 1860
or in the abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of the
District Magistrate 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 District Magistrate, may by
an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or otherwise
as the District Magistrate thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant –
(a) so as to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent
violence and alarm or the outbreak or spread of such disease; or
(b) to remove himself outside the district or any part thereof or such
area and any district or districts or any part thereof, contiguous thereto
by such route within such time as the District Magistrate may specify
and not to enter or return to the said district or part thereof or such area
and such contiguous districts, or part thereof, as the case may be, from
which he was directed to remove himself.”
9. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that there
should be reasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged or is
about to be engaged in the commission of an offence as mentioned under
Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. The order of externment has to be
passed considering the close proximity of time when the offences are
committed by the accused. The second aspect which is required to be
considered is the opinion of the District Magistrate to the effect that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
7 WP-44179-2025
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. These two conditions are required to be satisfied by
the authorities prior to passing the externment order.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of N.C.T. of
Delhi v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 181 had an occasion
to deal with Section 47 of the Bombay Police Act, 1978, which contains
provisions similar to Section 5 of the Act of 1990 and while referring these
essential conditions for passing an order under section 47 of the Delhi Police
Act which are also similar to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1990,
has held as under :
“Section 47 consists of two parts. First part relates to that satisfaction
of the Commissioner of Police or any Authorised Officer reaching a
conclusion that movement or act of any person are causing alarm and
danger to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that such person is engaged or is about to be engaged in
commission of enumerated offences or in the abetment of any such
offence or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large
hazardous to the community. Opinion of the Concerned Officer has to
be formed that witnesses are not willing to come forward in public to
give evidence against such person by reason of apprehension on their
part as regards safety of person or property. After these opinions are
formed on the basis of materials forming foundation therefore the
Commissioner can pass an order adopting any of the available options
as provided in the provision itself. The three options are — (1) to direct
such person to so conduct himself as deemed necessary in order to
prevent violence and alarm or (2) to direct him to remove himself
outside any part of Delhi or (3) to remove himself outside whole of
Delhi.”
11. From perusal of the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are
analyzed, it is seen that recommendation of Superintendent of Police is based
upon five criminal cases which are registered against the petitioner. The
Superintendent of Police was required to consider the aspect that the
commission of offence or the abetment of such offence by the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
8 WP-44179-2025
should have a very close proximity to the date on which the order is
proposed to be passed under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990. If a
person was engaged in the commission of offence or in abetment of an
offence of the type mentioned in Section 5(b), several years or several
months’ back, there cannot be any reasonable ground for believing that the
person is engaged or is about to be engaged in the commission of such
offence. The offences which were committed by the petitioner and registered
at Police Station Mundi District Khandwa were duly considered by the
Superintendent of Police while sending recommendation to the District
Khandwa for initiating externment proceedings against him. These are as
follows :
Sl.No. Crime No. Offences under Sections 1 283 of 2013 354, 354A, 294, 323 & 506 of IPC 2 238 of 2017 294, 323, 506 & 34 of IPC 3 30 of 2019 323, 506, 325 & 34 of IPC 4 228 of 2024 379 of IPC 5 238 of 2025 296,115(2), 351(3) of BNS 6 Istgasha No. 89 of 2024 110 of CrPC
12. From the aforesaid, it is clear that five criminal cases were registered
against the petitioner and the sixth case relates to prohibitory proceedings
initiated under Section 110 of CrPC. It is clear that one offence was
registered in the year 2013; one in the year 2017; one in the year 2019, one
in the year 2024 and one in the year 2025. Out of these five cases, the
petitioner has been acquitted in Crime No. 283 of 2013 and in Crime No. 30
of 2019, the matter has been settled on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties in the Lok Adalat vide order dated 14.12.2024. The
aforesaid cases could not have been considered by the Superintendent of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
9 WP-44179-2025
Police for forwarding the recommendations to initiate externment
proceedings. The fourth case i.e. Crime No. 228 of 2024 was registered for
offence under Section 379 of IPC and that could not be considered for the
purpose of forming an opinion for externment of the petitioner as the same
does not have any close proximity with the recommendation sent by the
Superintendent of Police. The fifth case which was registered against the
petitioner vide Crime No. 238 of 2025 for offence under Sections 296,
115(2) and 351(3) of BNS on 24.05.2025 at Police Station Mundi District
Khandwa is pending consideration before the concerning Court. From the
perusal of the FIR which was registered against the petitioner in the year
2025, it is seen that it is an individual act committed by him which does not
have any impact upon the society at large. By individual act of the petitioner,
he will be facing a criminal trial for the same but his individual act does not
affect public peace; therefore, the externment proceedings could not have
been passed based upon such case.
13. The second condition which is required to be satisfied for passing of
an order of externment against a person is the opinion of the District
Magistrate. The District Magistrate has to opinion that witnesses are not
willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by a
reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of person or property.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh vs State of
Bombay, (1952) 1 SCC 683 while construing a pari materia provision with
Section 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 has observed as under :
“The law is certainly an extra-ordinary one and has been made only to
meet those exceptional cases where no witnesses for fear of violence to
their person or property are willing to depose publicly against certainSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1949210 WP-44179-2025
bad characters whose presence in certain areas constitute a menace to
the safety or the public residing therein.”
14. In the light of the aforesaid, if the case of the petitioner is analyzed,
then it is seen that the District Magistrate in the impugned order has baldly
stated that the list of offences registered against the petitioner reflects that he
is a habitual criminal and because of his fear and terror in public, nobody is
coming forward to depose against the petitioner and the opinion was formed
by the District Magistrate for externment. However, the fact remains that
who are the witnesses who are not coming forward to depose against the
petitioner or the witnesses of the criminal cases which are registered against
the petitioner, whether they have approached the Court or in public to give
their statements against the petitioner, is not reflected from the opinion of the
District Magistrate.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi vs
Sanjeev alias Bittu (supra) has held that it is not the sufficiency of material
but the existence of material which is sine qua non for passing an externment
order. The relevant is as under :
“It is true that some material must exist but what is required is not an
elaborate decision akin to a judgment. On the contrary, the order
directing externment should show existence of some material
warranting an order of externment. While dealing with question mere
repetition of the provision would not be sufficient. Reference to be
made to some material on record and if that is done the requirements of
law are met. As noted above, it is not the sufficiency of material but the
existence of material which is sine qua non.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar
Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra reported in
(1973) 1 SCC 372 had an occasion to consider the similar issue and placing
reliance upon the judgment in the case Gurbachan Singh vs State of Bombay,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
11 WP-44179-2025
has held that care must be taken to ensure that the terms of sections 56 and
59 of the Bombay Police Act (which is in pari materia with the provisions of
5 of the Adhiniyam) are strictly complied with and that the slender
safeguards which those provisions offer are made available to the proposed
externee.
17. The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 imposes
serious restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom under Article 19(1)
of the Constitution of India as well as right to personal liberty in terms of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Until and unless the conditions
mentioned under Section 5(b) of the Adhiniyam, 1990 are strictly satisfied,
an order of externment could not have been passed by the authorities. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs State of
M.P. (supra) had an occasion to deal with the similar issue and it is held as
under :
“Unless the conditions mentioned under section 5(b) of the M.P. Rajya
Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 are strictly satisfied, an order of
externment, will have to be quashed by the Court. The two conditions,
for passing an order of externment against a person, to be satisfied are:
(i) There are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaged
or is about to be engaged in commission of an offence involving force
or violence or an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII
or under section 506 or 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment
of any such offence; and
(ii) In the opinion of the District Magistrate, 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.
In the instant case, the District Magistrate has in the impugned order
only baldly stated that the list of offences registered against the
petitioner reflects that he is a daring habitual criminal and because of
this there is fear and terror in the public and has not recorded any clear
opinion on the basis of materials, that in his opinion witnesses are not
willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person
by a reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their
person or property. Hence, in the absence of any existence of material
to show that witnesses are not coming forward by a reason of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
12 WP-44179-2025
apprehension to danger to their person or property to give evidence
against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order under
section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 cannot be passed by the District
Magistrate by merely repeating the language of section 5(b) of the Act
of 1990. The two conditions for an order of externment stated in
section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 do not exist in this case and the order
passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate order of the
Commissioner are liable to be quashed.
18. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Nagpure vs
State of M.P. and others : WP No. 22524 of 2024 decided on 14.10.2024 has
observed as under :
12. If the facts of present case are considered, then it is clear that six
criminal cases for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC
were registered against the petitioner. One offence was registered in
the year 2012, one was registered in the year 2018, two were registered
in the year 2020, one was registered in the year 2022 and the last one
was registered in the year 2023. The recommendation for initiating
proceedings under Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam was
sent by Superintendent of Police, Balaghat on 17/10/2023.
13. It is well established principle of law that the criminal history must
have close proximity with the proceedings under Section 5 of
M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam. By no stretch of imagination, it can
be said that offences registered against the petitioner in the year 2012,
2018, 2020 had any close proximity with the recommendation sent by
the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat for initiating proceedings under
Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
14. So far as the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC are
concerned, the same are trivial in nature. No offence of any nature
except under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC was ever registered
against the petitioner. There is nothing on record that in which case the
witnesses had not appeared before the Court on account of pressure/
terror of the petitioner. Old and stale cases cannot be taken into
consideration.
..
17. If the facts and circumstances of this case are tested on the anvil of
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Deepak (supra) as
well as judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
cases of Gangaram (supra) and Meena Sonkar (supra), it is clear that
old and stale cases have been taken into consideration. Another two
offences which were registered in the year 2022 & 2023 are trivial in
nature. There is no material on record to suggest that witnesses were
afraid of the petitioner and were not willing to come forward to depose
against him. Kamal Singh Gehlot, SHO Police Station GraminSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1949213 WP-44179-2025
Navegaon in his statement had stated that petitioner has been convicted
in some of the trials which clearly means that witnesses were not afraid
of the petitioner and they were deposing against him. Furthermore, it is
clear from the statement of SHO Police Station Gramin Navegaon,
District Balaghat that the very purpose of initiating proceedings under
Section 5 of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam was to keep the
petitioner away from election proceedings.
19. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gangaram vs
Commissioner, Indore Division, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine MP 6019 had
an occasion to deal with the object and reasons of the Adhiniyam and
considering the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under :
10. It is also not disputed that in the show cause notice, reference of
only one case was made, which was registered on 24-9-2018; and the
show cause notice was issued on 11-9-2020 i.e. after almost two years
of the registration of the offence, whereas the impugned order has been
passed by the District Magistrate, Burhanpur on 7-12-2020. Thus, it is
apparent that not only that the impugned order has been passed after
two years of the case registered against the petitioner, but it also
contained reference of one more case registered against the petitioner
on 14-10-2020. This Court in the case of Sudeep Patel v. State of M.P.,
(2018) 3 MP LJ 413 passed in M.P. No. 904/2017 on 9-1-2018 has
already held that the purpose of initiation of extemment proceedings is
to restrain a person from committing another offence in the near future
and in such circumstances the order of extemment must be passed
within the close proximity of the offences committed by the petitioner.
The relevant paras of the same are reads as under:–
“8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned District
Magistrate while passing the impugned order was oblivious of the
statement of object and reasons of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha
Adhiniyam, 1990 which provides as under:
“STATEMENT OF OBJECT AND REASONS
For want of adequate enabling provisions in existing laws for taking
effective preventive action to counteract activities of anti-social
elements Government have been handicapped to maintain law and
order. In order to take timely and effective preventive action it is felt
that the Government should be armed with adequate power to nip the
trouble in the bud so that peace, tranquility and orderly Government
may not be endangered.
(2) xxx xxx xxx
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1949214 WP-44179-2025
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx xxx”
9. Even according to section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1990 which is in
respect of power to make restriction order, it is for preventing any
person from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
Thus the sole purpose of the Adhiniyam of 1990 is to act timely and
effectively to initiate preventive action against a wrongdoer, which
object, in the considered opinion of this Court has been totally lost
sight of while passing the impugned order. As is already observed that
the show cause notice was issued on 11-6-2015, the reply was filed by
the petitioner on 14-7-2015 and thereafter the final order was passed by
the District Magistrate after recording the statements of various police
personnel on 23-5-2017, whereas the District Magistrate ought to have
proceeded with the matter expeditiously without affording any undue
adjournments to either of the parties and passed the order within a
reasonable time but the matter was kept pending for almost two years.
In such circumstances, although no period of limitation is provided in
the Adhiniyam, but still, the order should have been passed by the
District Magistrate within a reasonable time frame. The order in itself
was passed by the District Magistrate within a period of around two
years and during this entire period the petitioner was roaming around
freely and there is no allegation that during this period also he
committed any offense, thus the application of the provisions of
Adhiniyam appears to be totally redundant.
10. The District Magistrates, exercising their powers under the
Adhiniyam must understand that it is not a mere formality which they
have to perform before passing the order of externment under the
Adhiniyam which directly affects a person’s life and liberty guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the
opinion that in a way, the preventive detention is akin to the provisions
of externment under the Adhiniyam for both these measures are
preventive in nature and are enacted with a view to provide safe
environment to the public at large. The only difference being that in
case of preventive detention, the threat is imminent and serious
whereas in case of extemment, its degree is somewhat obtuse and
mollified and is not as serious as it is in the case of preventive
detention. The necessity to pass an order of preventive detention has
been emphasized by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613 which
is equally applicable to the cases of extemment. The relevant paras of
the same read as under:–
“Preventive detention : Meaning and concept
32. There is no authoritative definition of “preventive detention” either
in the Constitution or in any other statute. The expression, however, isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1949215 WP-44179-2025
used in contradistinction to the word “punitive”. It is not a punitive or
penal provision but is in the nature of preventive action or
precautionary measure. The primary object of preventive detention is
not to punish a person for having done something but to intercept him
before he does it. To put it differently, it is not a penalty for past
activities of an individual but is intended to pre-empt the person from
indulging in future activities sought to be prohibited by a relevant law
and with a view to preventing him from doing harm in future.
33. In Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. explaining the concept of
preventive detention, the Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking
through Ray, C.J. stated :
“19. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention
of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to
prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is die satisfaction of
the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu
acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by
detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other
hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial
and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court
of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and
the other is a preventive act. In one case a person is punished on proof
of his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas
in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something
which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to
prevent.”
34. In another leading decision in Khudiram Das v. State of W.B . this
Court stated :
“8. … The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does
not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by
way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every
preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be
prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is
reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all
cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from
proof. Patanjali Sastri, C.J. pointed out in State of Madras v. V.G. Row
that preventive detention is ‘largely precautionary and based on
suspicion’ and to these observations may be added the following words
uttered by the learned Chief Justice in that case with reference to the
observations of Lord Finlay in R. v. Halliday, namely, that ‘the Court
was the least appropriate tribunal to investigate into circumstances of
suspicion on which such anticipatory action must be largely based’.
This being the nature of the proceeding, it is impossible to conceive
how it can possibly be regarded as capable of objective assessment.
The matters which have to be considered by the detaining authority areSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1949216 WP-44179-2025
whether the person concerned, having regard to his past conduct
judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances and other relevant
material, would be likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated
in any of sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (1) of sub-section (1) of
section 3, and if so, whether it is necessary to detain him with a view to
preventing him from so acting …”
35. Recently, in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India the Court said :
“8. It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or
reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object
of which being to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from
imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or
from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling
activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford
protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently
taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection
to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done
something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from
doing so. It, therefore, becomes imperative on the part of the detaining
authority as well as the executing authority to be very vigilant and keep
their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in securing the detenu and
executing the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the
part of the detaining authority or executing authority will defeat the
very purpose of preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead
letter and frustrate the entire proceedings. Inordinate delay, for which
no adequate explanation is furnished, led to the assumption that the live
and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose
of detention is snapped. (See P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India, Ashok
Kumar v. Delhi Admn. and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of T.N.)”
11. Thus, testing the validity of the impugned order on the anvil of the
principles so laid down by the Apex Court, it becomes manifestly clear
that the order is flawed and cannot be sustained as there is an
inordinate delay in passing the impugned order, which has led to loose
its effectiveness.”
20. Again, in the case of Meena Sonkar vs State of M.P., reported in
(2017) 2 MP LJ 565, this Court relying upon the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel (supra) has
held as under :
16. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel v.
State of M.P., 2009 (4) M.P.L.J. 434 after considering section 5 of the
Act held thus: “8. The expression is engaged or is about to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
17 WP-44179-2025
engaged” in the commission of offence involving force or violence or
an offence punishable under Chapter XII, XVI or XVII or under
section 506 or 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 or in the abetment of any
such offence, shows that the commission of the offence or the abetment
of such offence by the person must have a very close proximity to the
date on which the order is proposed to be passed under section 5(b) of
the Act of 1990. Hence, if a person was engaged in the commission of
offence or in abetment of an offence of the type mentioned in section
5(b), several years or several months back, there cannot be any
reasonable ground for believing that the person is engaged or is about
to be engaged in the commission of such offence.”
21. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, it is clear that old and stale cases have been taken into
consideration by the authorities for forming an opinion to pass the
externment order against the petitoiner. There is no material placed on record
to suggest that who are the witnesses who are not coming forward to depose
against the petitioner. There was no concrete material to show that witnesses
in pending criminal cases were refusing to testify in court due to
apprehension of harm. Further, there was no recent incident of violence or
grave threat close to the date of the externment order that could demonstrate
an immediate and ongoing risk to public order or property. The order of
externment cannot be justified merely on the basis of old, stale and largely
minor cases. There must be a live link between the person’s current conduct
and the perceived threat to society.
22. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the
backdrop of the settled legal proposition enunciated in the aforesaid cases, it
can safely be concluded that the conditions as contained in Section 5(b) of
the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 are not complied with by the
respondents-authorities. Therefore, the impugned order of externment dated
17.07.2025 becomes unsustainable. The aforesaid aspect has not been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:19492
18 WP-44179-2025
considered by the appellate authority. Hence, the order passed by the
Commissioner Indore Division Indore dated 31.10.2025 affirming the
externment order passed by the District Magistrate Khandwa is also
unsustainable. Both the orders dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and
31.10.2025 (Annexure P/2) are quashed.
23. Consequently, the petition is allowed and disposed of finally. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
19:02:18
