Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Externment Order Against Habitual Offender, Says His Free Movement Is 'Too Dangerous To Public'

Dismissing the writ petition, a division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held,

“Due to its criminal activities, an atmosphere of panic and terror has been created in the city and ward. Petitioner's free movement in the society and in the region has become extremely dangerous for maintaining peace and order in the region, thus we are of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner is too dangerous for the people living in the locality. Looking to the number of criminal activities registered under different Acts and prohibitory actions taken against the petitioner, which are increasing day by day and also looking to the conduct of the petitioner by which free movement in the society and in the region has become extremely dangerous for maintaining peace and order, we are of the opinion that the District Magistrate has followed the due procedure of law and has rightly passed the impugned order against the petitioner under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1990.”

Background

Initially, the District Magistrate of Mahasamund had passed an order under Section 3 and Section 5 (a)(b) of Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 ('the Adhiniyam') against the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner was ordered to go out of the border area of District Mahasamund and adjacent revenue Districts of Raipur, Dhamtari, Gariaband, Balodabazar and Rairgarh District within twenty-four hours, for a period of one year. It was further stipulated that as long as that order remains in effect, without taking prior statutory permission, the petitioner could not enter into the boundaries of the said districts.

Challenging this order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2024. A further appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam before the appellate authority/State was also dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

It was the case of the petitioner that the District Magistrate had mechanically handed down the impugned order, without giving him proper opportunity of hearing, and more importantly, without considering the essential ingredients required to fulfil the provisions of the Adhiniyam, i.e. the degree of disturbance and its effect on people. Additionally, the appellate authority had also not considered that there must be subjective satisfaction for the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam. The Appellate Authority had relied on an extensive list of criminal cases, many of which were argued to be either outdated, or resolved on account of mutual settlement or acquittals, or politically motivated. 

Findings:

At the outset, the bench highlighted that the District Magistrate had passed the externment order premised on information that— since 1995, the petitioner and his associates were continuously involved in “hooliganism, fights, quarrels, abuses, assaults, deadly attacks, gets agitated on complaints against him and starts threatening. He tries to create pressure at higher levels to hide his criminal activities. Due to fear and terror of him, the people of Mahasamund area are not able to inform the police about many crimes committed by him.

Additionally, the Court added that 18 criminal cases were registered against him from 1995 to 2023, and 8 Istgasas were registered from 1996 to 2018. Out of the 18 cases pending, he was acquitted in 5 on the basis of mutual compromise/settlement due to fear/pressure imposed by him. He was fined in 3 cases and in 4 cases, he was acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. Preventive action was also taken 8 times yet there was no improvement in his conduct. When common people made complaints against the petitioner or someone in the locality tried to stop him, he became even more agitated, thereby posing a constant menace and threat to the society.

Upholding the externment order, the Court held,

“Looking to the number of criminal activities registered under different Acts and prohibitory actions taken against the petitioner, which are increasing day by day and also looking to the conduct of the petitioner by which free movement in the society and in the region has become extremely dangerous for maintaining peace and order, we are of the opinion that the District Magistrate has followed the due procedure of law and has rightly passed the impugned order.…”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Dheeraj Sahu @ Dheeraj Sarfraj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order