Back
Accused Waiting Inside Police Station for Inquiry Not '':
The court held that the investigating officer's reasonable explanation for the delay – being occupied with another case – justified the accused being asked to wait.
The recently ruled that an accused who is made to wait at a police station for inquiry because the investigating officer is engaged elsewhere cannot claim to have been "arrested" from the moment he entered the station. A division bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale dismissed a petition that sought release of a man arrested under the on grounds that his was delayed beyond the constitutionally mandated 24 hours.
A POCSO Accused and a Busy Investigating Officer
The petitioner, Manohar Sharad Pathare, filed the -like petition on behalf of his brother, who was an accused in an FIR registered on , at under and . The case involved an 11-year-old victim.
According to the police, the was called to the police station on June 10 at around 11.00 a.m. for inquiry. However, the investigating officer was simultaneously handling another case – Crime No. 392/2024 at – which required him to escort an accused, Mahir Husain Munir, who had fallen ill, to Sir J. J. Hospital and later produce him before a court. During this period, the remained at the police station, using his mobile phone to converse with contacts until about 7.00 p.m. At 8.15 p.m., the police formally arrested him and informed him of the grounds. He was produced before the on June 11 at 3.46 p.m.
The Core Legal Question: When Does Arrest Begin?
The petitioner's counsel, , argued that from the moment the entered the police station at 11 a.m., he was under the complete control of the police, which effectively amounted to arrest. Consequently, his production 28 hours later exceeded the 24-hour limit under and . She relied on the precedents in Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and the 's order in .
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor , representing the state, submitted the police affidavit detailing the IO's involvement in another case. She argued that the arrest was only effected at 8.15 p.m., and the was produced well within 24 hours from that time. The victim's counsel, , supporting the state, distinguished between "" and "arrest," citing the 's ruling in .
Distinguishing Precedents and Applying the Law
The bench, after considering the submissions, found the facts in the present case to be materially different from those in Nazirkar and Subhash Sharma . In Nazirkar , the accused was physically taken into at a metro station and then kept at the police station. In the case, was taken at 11 a.m. and the arrest memo prepared later.
Here, the court noted that the
had come to the police station voluntarily after being called.
"Once the
came to the Police Station, it was well within the powers of the Police to make enquiry with him and only after being satisfied that his arrest was necessary, the arrest could be effected,"
the judges observed.
The court accepted the investigating officer's explanation that he was occupied with another investigation as "reasonable." It added:
"For that purpose, if the
in this case was made to wait in the Police Station, that would not amount to his arrest. There is nothing to show that, he was not allowed to contact or converse with his relatives. In fact, there is a phone record which shows that he was in touch with others till about 07.00 p.m. in the evening."
Key Observations from the Bench
The division bench made it clear that the phrase
"
"
in Article 22(2) requires something more than merely being present at a police station for inquiry. The judges stated:
"It can not be accepted that, the moment the
stepped into the Police Station at around 11.00 a.m. on
, he was
. Article 22(2) uses the phrase '
'. Therefore, we do not find that this is a case of
."
The court also acknowledged that the police had taken sufficient precaution by conducting a
before formally arresting the accused.
"It is reasonable to expect from the Police Officers to satisfy themselves about the involvement of an accused before effecting actual arrest,"
the bench remarked.
Dismissal of Petition and Liberty to Seek Bail
Concluding that the arrest at 8.15 p.m. was valid and the production within 24 hours from that point complied with the law, the court dismissed the petition. However, it granted the the liberty to file a regular bail application, which the trial court is to decide on its own merits, uninfluenced by the dismissal of this petition.
The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours attaches only from the moment of , and that for inquiry do not constitute arrest.
