SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 300 of 2023
Decided On : 20-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Sandeep S.Ladda, Advocate, Ishani Khanwilkar, Advocate, Viral Babar, Advocate, Adnan A.Ansari, Advocate, Adesh Jadhav, Advocate, Sarvesh Dixit, Advocate, Raja Thakare, Advocate, Kuldeep Patil, Advocate, Saili Dhuru, Advocate, Akash Kavade, Advocate, Siddharth Jagushte, Advocate, P.P.Shinde, Advocate

Headnote:

CRIMINAL - BAIL - ARREST - CANCELLATION - SECTION 41 AND 41A OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 - ARNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR, (2014) 9 SCC 273 - STATE REPRESENTED BY THE CBI VS. ANIL SHARMA, AIR 1997 SC 3806 - JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF UP, (1994) 4 SCC 260 - SANTOS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2017) SCC 714 - MOHD. ZUBAIR VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), (2022) SCC OnLine SC 897 - HELD, petitioner's arrest and consequent remand to the custody of the respondent No.1 is in total violation of the tenets of the Cr.P.C and the procedure prescribed in Sec. 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. - PETITION ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, former Chairman and Managing Director of the Videocon Group of Companies, was arrested by the CBI in connection with a case registered against him and others for alleged irregularities in the sanctioning of loans by ICICI Bank. The petitioner challenged his arrest and detention, contending that it was illegal and in violation of the provisions of Sec. 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner's arrest and detention were illegal and in violation of the provisions of Sec. 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the Investigating Officer had not recorded any reasons for the arrest, as required by Sec. 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., and that the remanding Court had not recorded its satisfaction with the reasons for the arrest, as required by Sec. 41A(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Court further observed that the Investigating Officer had not complied with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 9 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI,(2022) 10 SCC 51, which require the police to issue a notice to the accused before arresting them, and to record the reasons for the arrest in writing.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's arrest and detention were illegal and in violation of the provisions of Sec. 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's arrest and detention were illegal and in violation of the provisions of Sec. 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the Investigating Officer had not recorded any reasons for the arrest, as required by Sec. 41(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., and that the remanding Court had not recorded its satisfaction with the reasons for the arrest, as required by Sec. 41A(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Court further observed that the Investigating Officer had not complied with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 9 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI,(2022) 10 SCC 51, which require the police to issue a notice to the accused before arresting them, and to record the reasons for the arrest in writing.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on bail.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petition challenged arrest and detention as violative of Sec. 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. (!) (!) - The Court held arrest/detention illegal due to non-recording of reasons for arrest and non-recording satisfaction by remand court, contravening Arnesh Kumar and Satender Antil directives (!) (!) (!) - It emphasized that police must record reasons for arrest and for not arrest; Magistrate must independently record satisfaction before authorising detention under Sec. 167, reflecting Article 21 protections (!) (!) - The judgment cites need for compliance with Sec. 41/41A as facets of Article 21 and directs adherence to Arnesh Kumar/Satender Antil standards; non-compliance can entitle the accused to bail (!) (!) (!) - Interim bail was granted in the present case, with conditions such as cash security and cooperation, pending hearing (!) (!) (!)

What is the legality of the petitioner’s arrest and detention in light of Sec. 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil?

What are the grounds required for arrest under Sec. 41(1)(b)(ii) and the necessity to record reasons for arrest and for not arrest, as well as the role of the remand court in recording satisfaction?

What interim relief and bail standards apply where non-compliance with Sec. 41 and 41A is found, and how should courts proceed to protect liberty while ensuring proper investigation?


JUDGMENT

PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, J. - By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), the petitioner has made following prayers;

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and/or setting aside the FIR RCBD1/2019/E/001, Dt. 22/1/2019 u/sec. 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1) and (d) of PC Act, 420 and 120B of IPC, being investigated by CBI, and the further investigation be stayed;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, quashing and/or setting aside the Orders of the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Court, CBI Special Judge dtd. 26/12/2022, 28/12/2022 and 29/12/2022 in FIR RCBD1/2019/E/001, Dtd. 22/1/2019 u/sec. 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) and (d) of PC Act, 420 and 120B of IPC, being investigated by CBI.

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the arrest and remand to custody of the Petitioner was arbitrary, illegal, without following due procedure of law and in gross violation of Ss. 41 and 41A of the CRPC and Article 14, 19 (1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(d) That pending hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation of the Orders of the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Court, CBI Special Judge, Mumbai dtd. 26/12/2022, 28/12/2022 and 29/12/2022 in R.A No.1271/2022 pursuant to FIR RCBD1/2019/E/001, Dtd. 22/1/2019 u/sec. 7, 13(2) r/w 13 (1) and (d) of PC Act, 420 and 120B of IPC, being investigated by CBI. against the Petitioner and release the Petitioner on bail, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, necessary and/or proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

2. By way of interim relief, the petitioner seeks his release from custody, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner - Mr. Ladda and learned Special P.P, Mr. Raja Thakare have restricted their arguments only on prayer clause (c) of the petition, as above.

4. A few facts germane for considering grant of interim relief are as follows.

5. The petitioner is the former Chairman and Managing Director of the Videocon Group of Companies. On 22/1/2019, a case was registered against (a) Videocon International Electronics Limited, (b) Videocon Industries Limited, (c) the petitioner - Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot (d) Smt. Chanda Kochhar (e) Shri Deepak Virendra Kochhar (f) M/s. NuPower Renewables Limited, (g) M/s. Supreme Energy Private Limited alongwith some unknown private persons and unknown public servants under sec. 120-B r/w Sec. 420 of the I.P.C and under Sec. 7, 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "P.C Act").

6. An F.I.R was registered on the basis of a preliminary inquiry conducted by the respondent No.1 - C.B.I (for short "respondent No.1") bearing PEBD1/2017/E/0001 dtd. 8/12/2017 at New Delhi against the accused persons on the premise that during the year 2011-2012, credit facilities of about Rs.3,250.00 crores were sanctioned by the I.C.I.C.I Bank in violation of banking regulations and credit policy of the bank to M/s Trend Electronics Limited, M/s. Century Appliances Limited, M/s. Kail Limited, M/s. Value Industries Limited and M/s. Evan Fraser & Co., India Limited. All companies belonging to Videocon Group were promoted by the petitioner. We are not touching to the merits of the case.

7. On 31/1/2019, ECIR/02/HIU of 2019 was registered by Directorate of Enforcement (for short "E.D."), New Delhi against the petitioner, Chanda Deepak Kochhar and Deepak Virendra Kochhar. The petitioner was summoned by the E.D and the respondent No.1. In the month of February, 2021, the E.D. completed it's investigation and filed a prosecution complaint without arresting the petitioner.

8. On 12/3/2021, Sessions Court granted bail to the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top