Bombay High Court Declares Arrest Illegal For Failure To Produce Accused Within 24 Hours
The Bombay Excessive Court docket has held that the arrest of a retired authorities officer accused of misappropriation was unlawful, as he was not produced earlier than a Justice of the Peace inside 24 hours of being taken into custody, in violation of Article 22(2) of the Structure and Part 57 of the Legal Process Code.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain noticed, “The provisions of the legislation and judicial precedents on the topic point out that the solely interval that may very well be excluded for computing the 24 hours restrict inside which the arrested particular person should be produced earlier than the closest Justice of the Peace is the time taken for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court docket of the Justice of the Peace. This Constitutional mandate can’t be annoyed or whittled by subterfuges.”
The Court docket added, “Within the current case, the second the Petitioner was taken into custody on 25 October 2024 at 1.00 p.m. or no less than at 5.07 p.m., the interval of arrest begins and subsequently, manufacturing earlier than the Justice of the Peace on 27 October 2024 at 12.20 p.m. would violate Article 22(2) and Part 57 CrPC.”
Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Further Public Prosecutor S. V. Gavand represented the Respondent.
Transient Information
The Petitioner, a 58-year-old retired Authorities officer, was accused of dishonest and forgery amounting to Rs. 3.37 crores in reference to a young course of. An FIR underneath Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 IPC was registered towards him. His anticipatory bail software was rejected by the Classes Court docket and the Bombay Excessive Court docket, with the Supreme Court docket subsequently dismissing his SLP.
The Petitioner was taken into custody and subsequently transferred to a special police station. That night time, as a substitute of being produced earlier than a Justice of the Peace, he was taken to the hospital and admitted, allegedly for blood stress and anxiousness. The formal arrest was recorded solely the next night time. He was lastly produced earlier than the Justice of the Peace after greater than 43 hours of being first taken into custody.
Reasoning of the Court docket
The Court docket rejected the prosecution’s argument that point spent in pre-arrest medical examination may be excluded from the 24-hour constitutional restrict, stating, “Sections 53 and 54 of Cr.P.C. clearly present that the medical examination is compulsory after arrest… There isn’t a idea of a pre-arrest medical examination in CrPC.”
The Court docket famous that the police station diary clearly used the phrase ‘custody’, indicating that the Petitioner was underneath the management of the police, and the identical terminology was used when he was admitted to the hospital. “Such motion on the a part of the police officer is more likely to result in unscrupulous tendencies. It’ll set a incorrect precedent the place, after rejecting anticipatory bail and dismissal of SLP, the police officer will admit the accused within the hospital and present arrest after 30–40 hours. It will give incorrect alerts to society and to the general public at massive,” the Court docket added.
The Court docket additionally rejected the suggestion that because the Petitioner’s son was current in the course of the hospitalisation, he was not in custody, observing, “Merely as a result of the Petitioner’s son occurred to be within the hospital… wouldn’t imply that the Petitioner was not within the custody or management of the police authorities.”
The Bench noticed, “The arrest and detention of the Petitioner, within the peculiar information and circumstances of the current case, just isn’t in consonance with the mandate of Article 22(2) of the Structure of India as nicely as Part 57 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, the identical is unlawful.”
Accordingly, the Court docket allowed the petition and declared the Petitioner’s arrest to be unlawful. He was directed to be launched topic to the situations.
Additional, noting that the Petitioner and his spouse had proven important money deposits of their accounts, the Court docket directed them to furnish PAN particulars to the Revenue Tax Division for acceptable inquiry.
Trigger Title: Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. State of Maharashtra (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-AS:25516-DB)
Look:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite; Advocates Pranav Pokale, Priyanka Chavan, Aditya Bagal, Chinmay Sawant
Respondent: Further Pubic Prosecutor S. V. Gavand
