The failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing and late production before the Magistrate violates due process, rendering the arrest illegal.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE J.

1. C.R. No. 2 of 2024 was registered with Kothrud Police Station, Pune, on 5/01/2024 invoking Sections 302 , 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 , 25 of Arms Act, 1959 along with relevant provisions of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The same was based on the information that at 1:20 p.m., Sharad Mohol, who was on his way to Dagdusheth Ganpati Mandir along with three other persons, Munna @ Sahil Polekar and two unknown persons accompanying him, fired at him and caused his death. The information was also provided that Munna Polekar fired at Pramod Sathe, who was walking with complainant behind Sharad.

2. The provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 were invoked in the said FIR on 27/01/2024 though the petitioner was not arraigned as an accused. His name was however added in the C.R., on 13/01/2024, on the basis of suspicion of allegedly hatching criminal conspiracy.

Admittedly, the petitioner Vitthal Mahadeo Shelar was not named as an accused in the FIR. However on 15/01/2024 at 19:30 hours, he was arrested in connection with the said C.R., being arraigned as accused no.15 and his police remand was sought before the J.M.F.C. Court No.1, Pune for the purposes of investigation. On application preferred by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime-1, Crime Branch, Pune City, Pune, upon production of the petitioner at 3:45 p.m., he was remanded in police custody till 20/01/2024 by the order passed by the J.M.F.C, Pune on 16/01/2024.

3. Being aggrieved by his arrest without following the procedure prescribed, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court alleging that he was not communicated the grounds of arrest in writing and he was illegally detained beyond 24 hours. However, in the wake of the reference being made to the larger Bench on the issue of communication of the grounds of arrest, on the very first day withdrawal of the petition was sought, which was permitted on 22/04/2025.

4. The present petition once again raises a challenge to the arrest of the petitioner, by alleging that it is illegal and his production before the Magistrate is beyond period of 24 hours and therefore on both these counts, he is entitled for his release.

5. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Manoj Mohite, for the petitioner along with Special Public Prosecutor, Dr. Pradeepsingh Rajput, for the State.

By consent of parties, we issue Rule, which is made returnable forthwith.

6. Mr. Mohite would invite our attention to the order dated 24/11/2025, when we permitted impleadment of Panvel City Police Station as a respondent. The amendment being carried out the Special Public Prosecutor is under instructions to represent the Investigating Officer of the Crime Branch as well as the Senior Police Inspector of Panvel City Police Station.

Inviting our attention to the timeline of the events, which according to Mr.Mohite are crucial for determination of the issue involved, the Panvel Police nabbed the petitioner at 1:00 a.m. on 15/01/2024 from Vashi, Navi Mumbai. As per the Police station general diary no. 8/2024, he was shown to be taken into custody at 3:56 a.m, and was brought to the police station. The general diary record that the petitioner and his vehicle were both handed over to the officers of Crime Branch, Pune.

According to Mr. Mohite from the time he was apprehended, he was in the custody of Panvel Police Station and his custody was handed over to officer of Crime Branch, Pune, though he was