Non-Production Of Arrested Person Before Magistrate Within 24 Hrs Will Lead To Unscrupulous Tendencies: Bombay High Court
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has emphasised that the authorized mandate of manufacturing of arrested particular person earlier than the Justice of the Peace inside 24 hours od detention can’t be violated as it should result in unscrupulous tendencies.
The Courtroom emphasised thus in a Writ Petition filed for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus to declare the arrest of an accused in a case registered below Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), to be unlawful.
A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain enunciated, “Primarily based upon the pre-arrest medical examination principle, the authorized and constitutional mandate of manufacturing of the arrested particular person earlier than the Justice of the Peace inside 24 hours of his detention can’t be violated. Such motion on the a part of the police officer is more likely to result in unscrupulous tendencies, the place after an individual is arrested, he isn’t produced earlier than the Justice of the Peace until the hospital authorities declare him match. This can give flawed alerts to society and to the general public at giant. In our view, such a pre-arrest medical examination principle may be fraught with mischief and extremely deplorable.”
Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite appeared for the Petitioner/Accused whereas APP S.V. Gavand appeared for the Respondent/State.
Factual Background
In 2023, a grievance was lodged in opposition to the Petitioner, his spouse, and different individuals alleging dishonest, forgery, and dishonestly acquiring an quantity of Rs. 3,37,30,000/-. The Anticipatory Bail Utility filed by the Petitioner earlier than the Excessive Courtroom was rejected and in the intervening time, chargesheet was filed by the police. The problem by the Petitioner-accused to the rejection of anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Supreme Courtroom. On October 25, 2024, a search was carried out by the Investigating Officer (IO) and the accused was taken into custody. Thereafter, he was taken to the Authorities Medical School for pre-arrest medical examination.
The medical doctors referred the accused to a different authorities hospital, nonetheless, the police determined to take him to a non-public hospital for cardiac analysis. On October 26, 2024, at midnight, he was admitted and was then discharged within the night. Thereafter, he was taken again to the Authorities Medical School for acquiring a certificates of health for custody. At night time, he was proven as formally arrested as per station diary entry, remand report, and affidavit-in-reply. On October 27, 2024 at 12:20 p.m., the accused was produced earlier than the Judicial Justice of the Peace First Class (JMFC) after which the remand order was handed. Being aggrieved, the accused approached the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom in view of the details and circumstances of the case, noticed, “… the justification sought to be made by the discovered APP for not complying with the constitutional mandate on the pretext of pre-arrest medical examination is required to be rejected.”
The Courtroom mentioned that in any case, the current Petition may be handled as a Petition difficult that a part of the bail order which has handled the impact of non-production of the Petitioner inside 24 hours. It additional famous that the Petitioner within the instantaneous Petition has additionally challenged remand orders.
“Subsequently, checked out from any angle, the rivalry raised by the discovered APP that this Courtroom shouldn’t entertain the current petition is required to be rejected. … Within the current case additionally, there are allegations of money transactions of considerable quantities. The discovered senior counsel, in his regular equity, didn’t oppose such instructions being given within the current matter”, it added.
The Courtroom, due to this fact, directed the Petitioner to furnish a Everlasting Account Quantity (PAN) issued by the Revenue Tax Authorities of himself and his spouse to the Registrar, Appellate Facet of the Courtroom inside two weeks.
“The Registrar to direct the Chief Commissioner of Revenue Tax, having jurisdiction over the Petitioner and his spouse, to conduct an enquiry and examine into the money transactions alleged within the current C.R.128 of 2024 and take needed motion in opposition to all of the individuals concerned within the money transactions”, it additionally directed.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom allowed the Writ Petition and directed the accused to be launched forthwith.
Trigger Title- Hanumant Jagganath Nazirkar v. The State of Maharashtra (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-AS:25516-DB)
Look:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite, Advocates Pranav Pokale, Priyanka Chavan, Aditya Bagal, and Chinmay Sawant.
Respondent: APP S.V. Gavand
