IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4283 OF 2025 Vicky @ Vikky Vilas Kamble ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent __________

Mr. Mayuresh Ingale a/w. Rajesh Waghmare and Ishan Paradkar for Petitioner.

Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for State/Respondent.

__________

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT : (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.

2. This petition is filed for release of the Petitioner in connection with C.R.No.92 of 2025 registered at Yerwada police station, Pune, because, according to the Petitioner, there was violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. According to the Petitioner, he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours as was required under the said Article.

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALEDate:

2025.09.30 +0530 Consequently, there was violation of Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), as he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. The second ground for filing this petition was that, there was violation of Section 35(3) and Section 35(5) of the BNSS.

3. Heard Mr. Mayuresh Ingale, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Supriya Kak, learned APP for the State.

4. Before referring to the legal issues raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is necessary to mention the allegations in the F.I.R. The Affidavit in reply filed by the Police Inspector (Crimes), Yerwada police station, Pune, mentions those facts in paragraph-5. The F.I.R. was registered at Yerwada police station based on the detailed complaint of one Rajeev Agrawal. On 26.11.2024, he had received a WhatsApp message and he was encouraged to invest various amounts in a number of schemes for profit. One application INDKKR was used for investment and for withdrawal of the money. Initially, the informant received some money, but subsequently, he could not withdraw any amount. He contacted the Administrator of the WhatsApp group. He was asked to deposit additional 20% amount to enable him to withdraw the amount which he had earned. Subsequently, his access to the account was blocked and he realised that he was defrauded for the amount of Rs.47,43,000/-. On these allegations, he lodged the F.I.R. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that, in this connection, the amount of Rs.3,80,000/- was transferred to the account of the present Petitioner by way of RTGS. Therefore, according to the investigating agency, the Petitioner was involved in commission of the offence. He was given a Notice U/s.35 of the BNSS. From this point onwards, there is a dispute in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP.

5. According to the Petitioner, he appeared before the investigating officer in Yerwada police station on 25.04.2025 and co-operated with the investigation. The I.O. recorded the Petitioner’s statement and then he was allowed to go. He went back to Akola. On 27.05.2025, the police team of Yerwada police station went to Akola and took the Petitioner in custody at

8:45a.m. According to the Petitioner, this amounted to his arrest at 8:45a.m. on 27.05.2025. The petition mentions that, there is a CCTV footage of his residence showing his arrest. After his arrest, he was produced before the J.M.F.C., Court No.5, Pune, on 29.05.2025 at 4:20p.m.; that would be after 56 hours from his arrest. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, there was clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 58 of the BNSS. According to him, this was the first violation.

6. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the second violation was that, since he had answered the Notice U/s.35 of the BNSS and had appeared before the police and had co-operated with the investigation,