The court emphasizes the necessity of compliance with Sections 41, 41A, and 50 of the Cr.P.C. regarding arrest procedures, highlighting the fundamental rights of individuals under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. All these Petitions raise a common legal issue regarding interpretation of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). In some of the Petitions, the interpretation of Sections 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C. is also necessary. The common contention in all these Petitions is the alleged violation of these provisions rendering the Petitioners’ continued detention in custody as illegal detention. The Petitioners are seeking their release on this ground. The facts pertaining to these Petitions individually are obviously different and, therefore, before considering the fact situation in each of these Petitions separately, we thought it fit to consider the interpretation of these provisions. Subject to such interpretation, an individual Petition from this group can be decided separately. To afford an opportunity to the counsel appearing for both the sides, we have listed these matters together.

2. We have heard respective learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as a Petitioner appearing as party in-person, in various Petitions. On the other hand, learned Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf, Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Venegavkar, Learned counsel Ms. Nitee Punde and learned counsel Mrs.Aruna Pai appeared for the Respondents.

3. Learned Advocate General put forth the perspective on the issue on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. Mrs. Aruna Pai and Ms. Nitee Punde, appeared on behalf of the respective investigating agencies.

4. After hearing both the sides extensively, we have formed an opinion that these issues require serious consideration by a Larger Bench. There are two main contingencies in which the issues can be referred to a Larger Bench. The first contingency is – if there is a difference of opinion of the Coordinate Benches of equal strength, then the matters, for that issue, can be referred to a Larger Bench. Similarly, when a Bench is of the opinion that the issues can be more advantageously decided by a Larger Bench; in that case also the issues can be referred for consideration to a Larger Bench. Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 reads thus :

“CHAPTER I

JURISDICTION OF SINGLE JUDGES AND BENCHES OF THE HIGH COURT

8. Reference to two or more Judges.—If it shall appear to any Judge, either on the application of a party or otherwise, that an appeal or matter can be more advantageously heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, he may report to that effect to the Chief Justice who shall make such order thereon as he shall think fit.”

5. This particular Rule 8 is interpreted by different Benches of this Court to support our view that in the above two contingencies the matters can be referred to a Larger Bench. A reference can be made to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prajith Thayyil Kallil Vs. State of Maharashtra in Anticipatory Bail Application No.161/2022 and connected matters decided on 5.5.2022 [2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1051] The discussion on this point can be found from paragraphs-15 to 21 from the reported judgment. This reasoning was based on two more judgments; the first one was of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anant H. Ulhalkar Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431and the other was the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax and Another, Dated 25.11.2021 passed in OS W.P. No. 2935/2018 [Division Bench of this Court] We are relying on these judgments and orders to adopt the course of referring the issues before us to a Larger Bench. In the following discussion, we are expressing our disagreement and difference of opinion on certain views expressed by the coordinateBenches; and on certain issues we find that the issues lack clarity all throughout the State of Maharashtra about the necessary procedure and requirements for arrest and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the issues can be