JUDGMENT :

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. By these Petitions, the Petitioners seek their release by invoking the writ of Habeas corpus on the ground that their judicial custody was authorized beyond a period of 15 days by the designated Court, which is contrary to the mandate of section 309(2) of Cr.P.C, the same is violative of Article 21of the Constitution of India.

2. The Petitioners are accused in Boisar police station C.R. No. I-267/2017 (MPID Case No. 2 of 2018) for the offence punishable under sections 406, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (in short “MPID Act”).

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of the parties.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned APP for the State. Perused the record with the assistance of both learned counsel for the parties.

5. In pursuance of the registration of the offence on 27th December, 2017, the Petitioners came to be arrested on 19th February, 2018 and were remanded to police custody up to 12th March, 2018. The Petitioners, were thereafter remanded to judicial custody.

6. The Petitioners’ first bail application, fled under section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”) came to be rejected on 23rd April, 2018, as section 467 of Cr.P.C. came to be added in the said crime. This Court permitted the Petitioners to withdraw bail application No. 2513 of 2018 as the investigation was in progress. On 17th May, 2018 charge-sheet came to be fled. Supplementary charge-sheet is fled on 23rd June, 2018. The Petitioners’ bail application after fling of the charge-sheet was rejected by the learned trial Court on 30th May, 2018 and thereafter successive bail applications filed by the Petitioners came to be rejected. Even the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the bail application No. 477 of 2019 fled by the Petitioners on the ground that the Petitioners have not disclosed the withdrawal of the bail application No. 2513 of 2018.

7. The main ground pressed in to service by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that, proviso to Section 309(2) of Cr.P.C. provides for remand of the accused for a term not extending 15 days at time. In the present case, from time to time, the judicial custody of the Petitioners was extended beyond 15 days, which according to the Petitioners is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for their release by invoking the writ of Habeas Corpus.

8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further urged that since no remand was sought or granted for added offence under sections 406, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 3 of MPID Act, the detention of the Petitioners is illegal, particularly in view of the fact that in the affidavit in reply fled by the State, it is admitted that no further remand was obtained after addition of new section. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contends that in terms of provisio under MPID Act, the provisions of Cr.P.C are applicable for the cases under section 13(2) of the MPID Act and the learned special Judge also exercises powers of the Magistrate.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) Babu Nandan Mallah vs. The State. (1971 SCC OnLine Pat 47)

(ii) Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2006 Cri.L.J. 2196)

(ii) Rajkumar Bhagchand Jain vs. Union of India and Anr. (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9435)

(iii) Ram N. Singh vs. State of Delhi & Ors. (AIR 1953 SC 277)

(iv) Manubhai Ratilal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 314).

10. Learned APP to counter the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that, writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable, once there is a judicial order of remand. To support her argument, she places reliance on:

(i) Saurabh Kumar vs. Jailo