SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

Sagar Maruti Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:19729-DB) - (High Court of Bombay) (29 Apr 2024)

Writ of habeas corpus can be issued only if detention is illegal

MANU/MH/2766/2024

Criminal

By present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that his detention beyond twenty four hours is illegal and hence, he is entitled to be released in connection with First Information Report registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune. The Petitioner has also raised the challenge to the order passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court, Pune remanding the Petitioner to police custody.

Once it is found that the order of remand has been passed within twenty four hours of the Petitioner's arrest, the requirement of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) stands satisfied.

Coming to the production of the Petitioner initially before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and thereafter before the learned Judge of the Special Court and yet again before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class only to be finally produced before the learned Judge of the Special court, it is to be noted that all these events have transpired within twenty hours of the Petitioner's arrest. On this basis, it cannot be said that though offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1999 had been registered vide FIR, the Petitioner was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class who had no jurisdiction to issue the remand order.

It is also to be noted that even otherwise under Section 57 of the CrPC, time that is necessary for undertaking the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court is liable to be excluded while determining the period of twenty four hours. There is no substance in the grievance of the Petitioner that he was illegally detained without a valid order authorizing his detention as required under Section 167 of the CrPC.

The question of issuance of writ of habeas corpus would arise only in the event of the Petitioner's detention being found to be illegal as held in V. Senthil Balaji vs. The State represented by Deputy Director and Ors. Present Court does not find any case made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would be open for the Petitioner to challenge the order of remand passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court by availing appropriate remedy. Petition dismissed.

Tags : ARREST   DETENTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved