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) 1161

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vivekanand V. Krishnan, Nishant M. Bardiya, Fakhruddin Khan
For the Respondents: M.M. Deshmukh, Kishor Kolhe

Arrests must comply with legal requirements, specifically the production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, failing which detention is deemed illegal.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 22(2) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 187, 58 - Petition for declaring arrest illegal and seeking bail - Petitioner arrested at 5:45 p.m. on 02.04.2025 but not produced before nearest Magistrate, breaching legal requirement - The Court held that such detention is unauthorized and illegal, underscoring the necessity for production within 24 hours as enshrined in Article 22(2). (Paras 1, 10, 12, 18)

(B) Rights of Arrested Persons - The court emphasized procedural safeguards provided under law to protect arrestees, noting that failure to adhere to these results in a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21. (Paras 12, 13, 19)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was arrested in connection with a financial crime involving misappropriation and was detained without proper legal procedures. The investigation revealed that the Petitioner bypassed legal protocols by failing to be presented before a Magistrate timely.

Findings of Court:
The Court declared the arrest illegal, granted bail under certain conditions, and affirmed the necessity of following due legal procedures during arrests.

Issues: Whether the arrest was legal considering the mandated time frame for production before a Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthorized and illegal detention resulted from the failure to produce the accused before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time, violating statutory provisions and fundamental rights.

Result: Petition allowed; the Petitioner released on bail with conditions.

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

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