SATYAM RAJU CHAMARE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS — WP/2647/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226,227,14,21. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010259952026

Filing Number

WP/10864/2026

Filing Date

02-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/2647/2026

Registration Date

08-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Sub-Category

Seeking Directions ( 105 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226,227,14,21
Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 302,364,201,120B
Arms Act Section 4(25)
Bombay Police Act Section 37(1)(3)R/W135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATYAM RAJU CHAMARE

    Adv. Aniket

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

  2. 2.SR POLICE INSPECTOR

  3. 3.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

  4. 4.DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay quashed Satyam Raju Chamare's externment orders, finding that the authorities relied on a stale 2020 case lacking a "live link" to the 2025 externment action, and improperly considered an ongoing investigation case. The court held that externment requires temporal proximity between criminal acts and the action taken, and that cases under investigation cannot support externment orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  4. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  5. 09-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/2647/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay quashed Satyam Raju Chamare's externment orders, finding that the authorities relied on a stale 2020 case lacking a "live link" to the 2025 externment action, and improperly considered an ongoing investigation case. The court held that externment requires temporal proximity between criminal acts and the action taken, and that cases under investigation cannot support externment orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case