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
| 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
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma
Kanu Sanyal Vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and others
Col. Dr. B. Ramachandra Rao Vs. The State of Orissa and others
Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others
A.K. Gopalan v. Government of India
Naranjan Singh v. State of Punjab
AI
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.
Failure to produce arrested individuals before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours constitutes illegal detention, impacting subsequent remand validity.
The detention of an individual beyond 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution, rendering the arrest illegal.
Arrests must comply with legal requirements, specifically the production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, failing which detention is deemed illegal.
Arrest must be recognized from when an individual's liberty is restrained, and failure to produce before a magistrate within 24 hours constitutes illegal detention under constitutional provisions.
A writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted if detention is legally sanctioned; procedural delays due to valid medical conditions do not render custody illegal.
The failure to obtain a transit warrant and produce the accused within 24 hours constitutes a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, rendering the detention unlawful.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.