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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, S.M. MODAK, JJ.
Karan Ratan Rokade and Others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 996 of 2025, Interim Application No. 850 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vivek V. Salunke, Vaibhav Jathar
For the Respondent: S.V. Gavand
For the Intervenor : Varun Thokal, Jayant Bardeskar

Detention is unlawful if not presented before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, but subsequent valid remands under different provisions can negate initial illegalities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 22(1), and 22(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 57 - Habeas corpus petition - Claim of illegal arrest due to failure to produce applicants before nearest Magistrate within 24 hours - Violation of constitutional rights established as arrests not compliant with procedural safeguards. (Paras 12-14, 20-24)

(B) Latency in raising issues - Petitioners’ delay in approaching the court for relief considered, impacting the discretionary power of the court to grant habeas corpus. (Paras 27-28)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were arrested on 30.06.2023 in connection with a murder investigation but were produced before a Magistrate on 02.07.2023, exceeding the 24-hour limit for presentation under Article 22(2) and Section 57. They claimed illegal detention as their remand orders were issued post the mandated time frame.

Findings of Court:
Court found the initial remand illegal due to delay in presenting the Petitioners to a Magistrate, but later remands under valid legal proceedings negated the grounds for release.

Issues: Whether the Petitioners' arrest and subsequent remands were legal under constitutional provisions and statutory laws. Did the delay in seeking relieves affect the validity of their claims for habeas corpus?

Ratio Decidendi: Detention becomes unlawful if the arrested person is not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, affirming the principle that such compliance is critical to protect individual rights. However, continued detention under valid remand orders under the MCOC Act upheld subsequent to the delay in seeking relief.

Result: Petition dismissed; no grounds found to warrant release from custody.

Table of Content
1. petition for habeas corpus and factual background. (Para 1 , 4)
2. petitioners' argument on illegal arrest. (Para 2 , 5 , 10 , 11)
3. state's argument on procedural compliance. (Para 6 , 7 , 9)
4. claims of delayed production impair rights. (Para 8)
5. court's evaluation of jurisdiction and timing. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. impact of valid remand orders. (Para 18 , 20)
7. leeway in evaluating legality at filing. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
8. conclusion against granting habeas corpus. (Para 27 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. This Petition is filed by the Petitioners for directions in the nature of writ of Habeas corpus for release of the Petitioners from custody in connection with C.R. No.346/2023 dated 22.5.2023 registered at Chikhali police station, Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune which has resulted in Special Case (MCOC Act) No.1078/2023 on the file of the learned Special Court (MCOC Act), Pune. The other prayers are Deshmane (PS) for declaration that their arrest was illegal and in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India; and for setting aside their remand orders dated 2.7.2023 and 7.7.2023.

2. The main contention of the Petitioners is that they were produced before a Magistrate, after more than 24 hours from their arrest at the time of seeking their remand on the first occasion, which is violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and which is also in violation of Section 57 of Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Mr. Vivek Salunke, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S.V. Gavand, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Varun Thokal, learned counsel for the Intervenor.

4. Before referring to the submissions made by learned Counsel of both sides, it is necessary to refer to the brief facts, leading to the arrest of the Petitioners. These facts are mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police Shri Sunil Kurade attached to Wakad Division of Pimpri Chinchwad Police Commissionerate, District–Pune. The FIR was lodged by the informant Rajendra Karle. In 2022, during the Navratri festival at Patil Nagar, Chikhali there was some altercation between the Petitioner No.1 Karan Rokade and his friends on one hand and one Krushna @ Sonya Haribhau Tapkir and his friends on the other. The Petitioner No.1 Karan had threatened Krushna of dire consequences. The Petitioner No.1 Karan was having a grudge against Krushna as Krushna was gaining popularity in the vicinity. On 22.5.2023, at about 1.40 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. Saurabh Pansare and Sidharth Kamble came on a two-wheeler at the spot of offence. Saurabh Pansare fired bullets on the chest, neck and other parts of Krushna; who succumbed to death on 22.5.2023 while taking treatment. On that basis, the FIR was lodged vide C.R. No.346/2023 at Chikhali police Station under Sections 302 , 120-B of IPC and under Sections 3(25)(27) of the ARMS ACT and under Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT . The investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Krushna’s murder was committed by an Organized Crime Syndicate headed by the Petitioner No.1 Karan. The Senior Inspector of Police, Chikhali police station Shri Dnyaneshwar Katkar submitted a report dated 29.6.2023 to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad for applying the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short ‘MCOC Act’) against the Petitioners and other accused in connection with the said offence. The material collected during the investigation indicated that the Petitioners were involved in this offence. They were controlling the same by staying outside Maharashtra. From the date of offence they had absconded from their homes and they had abandoned their mobiles. It was with great difficulty a specialized squad started tracing their locations from different States. During that process, the squad intercepted the IP address of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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