IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, S.M. MODAK, JJ.
Shakoor Ahmed Jamaluddin Sayed - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2297 of 2025
Decided On : 02-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for illegal arrest and bail. (Para 1) |
| 2. background and allegations against petitioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. details of arrest and judicial process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. details of the petitioner's arrest and the consequent impact on legal standing. (Para 9) |
| 5. contentions by both parties regarding legality. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. court's observation on 24-hour production rule. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. court's observations on jurisdiction and timely procedures. (Para 14) |
| 8. key principle regarding illegal detention beyond remand periods. (Para 16) |
| 9. illegality of arrest confirmed by court. (Para 19) |
| 10. arguments regarding the legality of the arrest. (Para 20) |
| 11. court's order on bail and re-arrest provisions. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
1. This is a petition for declaring the arrest of the Petitioner illegal in connection with C.R. No. 26 of 2025 registered with Sarkarwada Police Station, Nashik and consequent prayer is for his release on bail.
2. Heard learned Counsel Shri Krishnan for the Petitioner and learned APP Ms. Deshmukh for the Respondent-State.
3. The basic contention of the Petitioner is that he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours as is the requirement of law and therefore, his arrest is illegal. Before referring to the questions of law raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the allegations in brief against him. The F.I.R. was lodged on 21.01.2025 by one Pankaj Kumar Anand Kumar Thakur. He has stated in his F.I.R. that he is Deputy General Manager in the branch office of M/s Aban offshore Limited, Chennai. The Petitioner had his own IS Construction Company at Nashik. He was a resident of Sikar, State of Rajasthan. The Petitioner’s Company was given contract by Public Works Department, Nashik for constructing a road between Adgaon-Niphad and Aurangabad between the period 2001-2002 for the budget of Rs. 16 Crores. The Petitioner’s firm did not have so much capital and nobody was willing to give him financial assistance.
Therefore, he contacted the Complainant’s Company and gave a proposal for taking 50% capital in lieu of 50% shares in their project. Accordingly, the document was executed on 14.03.2003. A company by the name ‘I.S. Infrastructure and Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.’ was formed. The Complainant’s company invested substantial amount in the project. Due to the Goodwill of the complainant’s company, Banks gave loan of Rs.11 Crores. The road was constructed. The toll collection from vehicles started from 06.03.2004 onwards. The amount which was received as toll was to be deposited by the Petitioner in the Company’s account maintained with Indian Bank, Ambad, Nashik. But the Petitioner misappropriated that amount. The new company’s account was declared as NPA as the installments were not paid. PWD took over the project and started collecting toll. ‘I.S. Infrastructure And Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.’ claimed compensation in Arbitration proceedings. The compensation and interest to the tune of Rs.25,25,35,000/- was to be paid to the company. The Petitioner forged the documents and transferred the amount of Rs.12,61,68,000/- in the account of Immortal Company of the Petitioner and he misappropriated it.
4. The Assistant Police Inspector Kishor Kolhe attached with Economic Offence Wing, Nashik has filed his affidavit-in-reply. It is mentioned in that affidavit that in order to withdraw the amount received from the PWD, Nashik for the payment of that work, the Petitioner has made the false and fabricated documents and submitted them to the bank. During the investigation, the bank statements were verified, and it was revealed that the money was received against bill of the contract from the Public Works Department to I.S. Infrastructure and Buildcon Private limited and thereafter, the Petitioner has siphoned of those amounts to his own Company’s bank account, namely, Immortal Infrastructure Private Limited. Accordingly, C.R. No. 26 of 2025 was regist
Vachhalabai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Ram Kotumal Issrani Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and others
Kavita Manikikar W/o Ravikiran Mankikar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Arrests must comply with legal requirements, specifically the production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, failing which detention is deemed illegal.
Failure to produce arrested individuals before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours constitutes illegal detention, impacting subsequent remand validity.
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.
The court affirmed that the definition of arrest includes any situation where a person's liberty is restrained, and emphasized the constitutional and statutory obligation to produce an arrested perso....
The failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing and late production before the Magistrate violates due process, rendering the arrest illegal.
The judgment establishes that police must justify arrests and follow legal procedures, particularly in non-bailable offenses, to protect individual liberties.
Arrest and detention – No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person – It would be prudent and wise for a Police officer that no arr....
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.