SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
SUBHASHREE DAS @ MILLI - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1601 of 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1957 of 2012)
Decided On : 05-10-2012.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41 and 57 - Arrest made well before sunset - Detention not substantially exceeding 24 hours - Arrest not unauthorized. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
This is a challenge to arrest being unauthorized on ground of being made after sunset and detention well beyond 24 hours.
Finding of the Court:
Finding of the High Court that arrest was not unauthorized is not incorrect.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. First Information Report no. 8 dated 14.1.2010 was registered at police station Balugaon under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 124A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. According to the complainant (Balabhadra Pradhan, Sub Inspector of Police), on 14.1.2010 he alongwith Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police D.K. Pathnaik and B.K Behera, were on motor vehicle checking duty on National Highway no. 5. The complainant and his companions were also keeping a watch on the movement of anti social criminals. At about 5:20 PM, one Bollero pick-up van bearing registration no. PR-02 BA 5327, was seen by the police party, coming at a high speed from Bhubaneswar side. On being signalled, the said vehicle stopped, but one of its occupants alighted therefrom and started running away. The complainant chased him and was successful in detaining him. In view of the conduct of one of the occupants of the vehicle, and in view of the smell emanating from the vehicle, the complainant and his companions became suspicious, and therefore, decided to search the vehicle. In the vehicle, they found two persons including the driver. In the presence of the occupants, the vehicle was searched by the police party. Four packed cartons, one air bag and one hand bag were found in the vehicle. On opening the cartons, the complainant and his companions found “Maoist” leaflets and “Maoist” literature. The air bag contained jungle shoes. The small bag contained Naval related literature, one diary, and one Naxal secret letter. Cash of Rs.21,175/- was recovered from one of the occupants on his personal search. The police also found three mobile phones with SIM cards bearing numbers 9692197593, 9439071458 and 9692231528 in possession of the occupants of the van. The vehicle and materials aforementioned were seized by the police party. A seizure memo was prepared, which was got signed from the occupants of the van, and a copy thereof was also handed over to them.
3. On being questioned, the occupants of the Bollero pick-up van allegedly disclosed to the police party, that the confiscated materials had been handed over to them by the appellant, who was allegedly the wife of Naxal leader, Sabyasachi Panda. According to the occupants of the vehicle, the aforesaid material was being taken to Bhanjanagar and the same was to be handed over to some unknown “Naxalites”. The material would thereupon be used for subversive activities in different parts of Orissa.
4. According to the appellant, she was arrested on account of her alleged involvement in the crime case arising out of First Information Report no. 8 dated 14.1.2010. She also asserted, that she had been arrested after sunset and before sunrise i.e., during the night intervening 14/15.1.2010. It was also the assertion of the appellant, that she was arrested without the permission of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. It was, therefore, contented that her arrest was illegal. It was further submitted, that the appellant was not produced before the concerned Court within 24 hours of her arrest. Accordingly, the prayer of the appellant has been, that her detention being illegal, she deserved to be adequately compensated. In fact, it is for the aforesaid reason, that the appellant had approached the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, by filing Writ Petition (Crl.) no. 130 of 2010.
5. It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the crime case arising out of First Information Report no. 8 dated 14.1.2010, in which the appellant was arrested, has already been quashed by the High Court of Orissa, and as such, according to the appellant, it is obvious that her detention on the night intervening 14/15.1.2010 was wholly baseless and illegal. In order to seek compensation, two pleas were pressed by the ap
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.