Failed To Bring Credible Material To Substantiate Allegations Regarding Date & Time Of Arrest: Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Alleging Breach Of 24-Hr Rule
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court was considering the Writ Petitions of two accused persons who were arrested in relation to the offence under Sections 211, 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467 and 471 of the IPC.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal writ petitions, in a case where the accused persons alleged that their arrest was illegal as they were not produced before the Court of the concerned Magistrate within 24 hrs. The High Court noted that the accused persons failed to bring credible material to substantiate allegations as regards the date and time of their arrest.
The High Court was considering the Writ Petitions of two accused persons who were arrested in relation to the offence under Sections 211, 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W. Joshi said, “We are of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to bring any credible material on record to substantiate their allegations as regards the date and time of arrest. The petitioners have failed to provide any plausible explanation for not raising the issue before learned CJM during the course of hearing of remand application on 27.09.2024. On perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish that they were arrested on 25.09.2024 as alleged by them as against 26.09.2024 which is the date of arrest mentioned in the remand application.”
Advocate Ajinkya S. Reddy represented the petitioner while Addl. Public Prosecutor A. D. Wange represented the State.
Factual Background
In the first case, the Petitioner claimed that he was arrested on September 25, 2024, from his office i.e. G.S.T. Office, Kalyan in relation to First Information Report (FIR) registered for the offence under Sections 211, 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467 and 471 of the IPC. It was alleged that he was produced before the concerned Magistrate on September 27, 2024, but the date and time of arrest were wrongly shown as September 26 at 2016 hrs.
The petitioner in the second petition claimed that he was arrested in relation to the same offence from his office on September 25, 2024 at around 5.30 p.m. and he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) on September 27, 2024 showing the date and time of arrest as September 26 at 2016 hrs. It was alleged that the arrest and detention were illegal in view of Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as the respondents had failed to produce the petitioners before the Court of the concerned Magistrate within 24 hours.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Official respondent issued communication to PSO, Bhaykhala Police Station, to assist in taking custody of the petitioner. The petitioner in another Writ Petition had produced an extract of the visitor register at G.S.T. Office, Kalyan, indicating that the Police Sub-Inspector had visited the said Office on September 25, 2024. It was based on these documents that the petitioners contended that they were arrested on September 25.
“As regards Section 57 of Cr.P.C., a statutory obligation is imposed on the Police Officer not to detain any person arrested in custody without warrant for a period longer than such period as my be reasonable under the circumstances and that such period shall not exceed 24 hours, in absence of any order from the Magistrate concerned. The said provision imposes an obligation on the Police Officer to produce the person arrested before the Magistrate within a period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest”, the Bench explained.
On a perusal of the remand application, the Bench noted that the petitioners were arrested on September 26 and were produced before the Magistrate on September 27 at around 3.19 p.m. Although it was stated that the petitioners were arrested on September 25 and not on September 26, perusal of the order dated September 27 passed by the Magistrate granting PCR up to September 30, 2024, did not indicate that the grievance with respect to the date and time of arrest was raised by the petitioners.
The Bench further mentioned that the petitioners were represented by counsel during the course of hearing of the remand application and the grievance in this regard was not raised before the Magistrate i.e. during the course of hearing of the application for extension of remand or the application for grant of bail.
Thus, finding no credible material on record to substantiate their allegations as regards the date and time of arrest, the Bench dismissed the Petitions.
Cause Title: Sagar s/o Pralhad Sonawane & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:14365-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Ajinkya S. Reddy
Respondents: Addl. Public Prosecutor A. D. Wange