SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAY
DILIP PANDRANG KAMATH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR – Respondent
WP 758/2006



- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.758 OF 2006

Dilip Pandurang Kamath, )

Age 45 years, Residing at )

R.N.A.Park, No.A-1/302, )

Vashi Naka, Mumbai - 400 074. ).. Petitioner

(Org.Accused No.7)

Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra, )

Represented by its Secretary)

Home Department, )

Mantralaya, Mumbai. )

2. Central Bureau of )

Investigation, having its )

Regional Office at Colaba, )

Mumbai. ).. Respondents

--

Shri Samir A. Vaidya, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent No.1.

Shri P.D.Gharat, Special Public Prosecutor, for the

Respondent No.2.

--

CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR &

SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ

DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )

1. Heard. A short point for consideration in

this matter is whether the detention of the petitioner

from 10th March, 2006 onwards is illegal and unlawful

for the want of warrant of remand in accordance with

- 2 -

the provisions of Section 309(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of the

petitioner that the petitioner was arrested in July,

2004 in relation to the C.C.No.91/PW/2004 arising out

of C.R.No.78 of 1998. It is his further case that he

has been in the judicial custody and is lodged in

Yerawada Central Prison, Pune, since his arrest.

Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the

judicial custody was extended from time to time.

However, since 10th March, 2006, the petitioner is

illegally detained without any such warrant of remand

having been issued by the Magistrate under Section

309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereby a

personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution is denied to him.

2. Placing reliance in the decisions in the

matters of Manohari v. State of Rajasthan,

Manohari v. State of Rajasthan,

Manohari v. State of Rajasthan, reported

in 1983 Cri.L.J. 1231, Urooj Abbas v. State of Uttar

Urooj Abbas v. State of Uttar

Urooj Abbas v. State of Uttar

Pradesh,

Pradesh,

Pradesh, reported in 1973 Cri.L.J. 1458 (F.B.),

Raghavendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,

Raghavendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,

Raghavendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,

reported in 1976 Cr.L.J. 1782, Surendra Tiwari v.

Surendra Tiwari v.

Surendra Tiwari v.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 1994

Cri.L.J. 805 and Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of

Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of

Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of

Delhi & Ors.

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