JUDGMENT :

A.S. GADKARI, J.

1. The Petitioners have filed present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for their release from custody in CR No.28 of 2023 dated 20th February, 2023 registered with Malabar Hill Police Station, Mumbai under Sections 120(b) and 385 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, on the ground that, from their arrest on 19th March, 2023 at about 11.45 p.m. near Godhra, State of Gujarat, they were not produced before the Magistrate within a period of 24 hours and therefore there is violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”).

2. Heard Mr. Mrigendra Singh, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners and Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General for the Respondent- State. Perused record produced before us.

3. Though the Petitioners have prayed for several reliefs in the prayer clause of the Petition, the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, he is restricting his relief for release of the Petitioners from custody of Respondent-State on the ground of breach of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Cr.P.C..

4. Mr. Mrigendra Singh, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the Petitioners and in particular Petitioner No.1 was arrested at about 11.45 p.m. on 19th March, 2023 at Godhra, Gujarat and were produced for remand before the 45th Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai on 21st March, 2023 i.e. after 36 hours of their arrest. That, the Press-Note issued under the signature of Dr. Balsingh Rajput dated 20th March, 2023 and electronic news duly supports the said fact. He submitted that, the Petitioners were not produced before the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction over the place, where the Petitioners were arrested and were produced before the learned 45th Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai after 36 hours from their arrest which is in violation of Article 22(2) of Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Cr.p.C. He submitted that, the Respondent-State did not obtain transit remand from the Magistrate in the State of Gujarat for bringing the Petitioners to Mumbai. The directions provided in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 are not followed. That, the learned 45th Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai has not taken into consideration the said aspect and remanded the Petitioners to police custody till 27th March, 2023. He submitted that, as there is breach of Section 57 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioners are entitled to be released from custody of Respondent-State forthwith.

Learned Senior counsel tendered across the bar a compilation of six Judgments. However, he fairly submitted that, he is pressing into service only three decisions mentioned therein namely, (i) Gunupati Keshavram Reddy Vs. Nafisul Hasan & Anr. reported in (1952) 1 SCC 343 : 1952 SCC OnLine SC 26; (ii) Manoj Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 715 and (iii) D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416.

He therefore prayed that, the Petitioners’ arrest and subsequent custody thereof may be declared as illegal and in violation of Article 22(2) of Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Cr.P.C..

5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent-State opposed the prayers sought in this Petition and at the outset submitted that, the Petitioner No.1 is a proclaimed offender by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court Esplanade, Mumbai in CR No.172 of 2016 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station. That, the Petitioner No.1 after interception was traced out near Bedia Naka within the jurisdiction of Vejalpur Police Station in the State of Gujarat at about 2.25 a.m. of 20th March, 2023 and was detained with the help of police of the said police station. That, the Petitioner No.1 was thereafter immediately brought to Mumbai on 20th March, 2023 at abou