Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE
Kaushik Rameshchandra Thakkar @ Anam – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. This matter was heard at length on 04.04.2025, 07.04.2025, 09.04.2025, and today.
3. The Petitioner has put forth his prayers below paragraph F (i), (ii) and (iii), which read as under :
(i) After examining the facts, circumstance and remand order passed by the Ld. Magistrate Thane be pleased to issue writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (528 of BNSS), thereby declaring the arrest of the Petitioner in Crime No.1217/2024, registered with Kasarwadavli Police Station, under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 120(B), 34 of Indian Penal Code to be illegal;
(ii) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the arrest illegal and thereby quash and set aside the remand orders dated 17th August 2024, 19th August 2024 and 22nd August 2024 passed by the Ld. Magistrate Thane; and
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate direction to release the present Petitioner on interim bail in Crime No.1217/2024 registered with Kasarwadavli police station fort
None identified.
(Note: The provided case law list contains only a partial excerpt and does not include explicit references to overruled, reversed, or criticized treatment. Without additional information or context indicating such treatment, no case is categorized as bad law at this stage.)
Followed:
None explicitly indicated.
(Explanation: The excerpt references the law laid down by the Supreme Court in a specific case but does not specify that subsequent cases have followed or adhered to this ruling.)
Distinguished:
None explicitly indicated.
(Explanation: There is no mention of subsequent cases distinguishing this case from others.)
Criticized / Questioned:
None explicitly indicated.
(Explanation: The excerpt does not contain language suggesting that the case was criticized or questioned in later rulings.)
Reversed / Overruled:
None explicitly indicated.
(Explanation: The excerpt does not mention any reversal or overruling of this case.)
Abrogated:
None explicitly indicated.
(Explanation: No language suggests that this case has been abrogated or nullified.)
The treatment of the case "State of Maharashtra and Ors." as referenced in the excerpt is unclear. The mention of "Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court" suggests reliance on a prior precedent, but there is no information on whether this case has been upheld, criticized, overruled, or otherwise treated in subsequent judgments.
Due to the lack of explicit treatment indicators, the case's current legal standing remains uncertain based solely on the provided excerpt.
**Source :** KAUSHIK RAMESHCHANDRA THAKKAR @ ANAM vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Bombay
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.
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.
The requirement to provide written grounds for arrest is a constitutional mandate; failing this renders the arrest and consequent remand illegal, entitling the individual to immediate release.
The Enforcement Directorate officers are not Police officers under CrPC, thus they cannot seek custody beyond the initial 24 hours of arrest unless substantively justified; however, compliance with P....
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 failure to disclose grounds for arrest and non-compliance with procedural requirements rendered the detention illegal, warranting intervention via habeas corpus.
Point of Law : A writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court is available in case of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 but it do....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
