Failure to provide written grounds for arrest constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22, rendering the arrest illegal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C), as under :-

“A) That after examining the facts, circumstance, material in the chargesheet and remand orders passed by the Ld. JMFC at Baramati Dist. Pune, this Hon’ble Court may 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 illegal in Crime No. 283 of 2024, registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences punishable under section 307, 143, 147, 352, 504, 506, 201 of Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 3,25,29 of Arms Act.

B) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the arrest of the Petitioner illegal and gross violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under 21 and 22 in relation to F.I.R. no. 283 of 2024, registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station, Dist. Pune and thereby quash and set aside the remand orders dated 01.07.2024 and 04.07.2024 passed by the Ld. JMFC at Baramati Dist. Pune alongwith order below Exhibit 38 dated 17.05.2025 passed by LD Session Court at Baramati Dist. Pune in Session Case no. 190 of 2024.

C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate direction to release the Petitioner forthwith by declaring the arrest illegal in FIR No. 283 of 2024 registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station, Dist. Pune”.

3. We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the Petitioner, the learned Addl. PP and the learned Advocates for the Original Complainant/ Intervenor. We have gone through the voluminous record available before us.

4. The issue raised by the Petitioner is that the reasons for his arrest were not communicated to him in writing, when he was arrested on 1^st July, 2024.

5. The deceased Ranjit Eknath Nimbalkar, had two bulls, named Sarja and Sundar, which were kept in the custody of one Vitthal Chavan, who was employed as the deceased’s driver. Sarja originally belonged to Accused No.1 and was purchased by the deceased for Rs. 61,00,000/-, a year ago. Thus, the deceased owned a pair of bulls, Sarja and Sundar. These strong bulls were used for bullock racing. The employer (Accused No.1) of the Petitioner was desirous of purchasing Sundar, who was valued at Rs. 37,00,000/-. Accused No.1 paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money and the balance of Rs. 32,00,000/- were agreed to be paid on 27^th June, 2024.

6. The dispute arose in a meeting held on 27^th June, 2024 and it is alleged that the deceased did not part with the bull Sundar. The police contend that Accused No.1 got infuriated, pulled out his pistol and shot the deceased in the head. Since the present Petitioner was said to be a witness, he was being interrogated. However, during the investigation, it was revealed that Accused No.3 had directed the Petitioner to wash away the blood stains and clean up the crime scene. Hence, during interrogation, the Petitioner was arrested on 1^st July, 2024 at 05:04 hours (early morning), on the charge of attempting to destroy evidence,.

7. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 28^th June, 2024. The Petitioner was initially being interrogated as a witness, and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.PC) was recorded. However, on 1^st July, 2024, during the course of the interrogation, the police authorities arrested him and produced him before the learned Magistrate on the same day.

8. The griev