Bombay HC: Wife Humiliating Husband in Front of His Friends is Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Delhi HC Interprets Doctrine of “Compelled Self-Publication”,  ||  Del. HC Issues Summons to Campus Sutra in Trademark Infringement Suit Filed by Footwear Brand Campus  ||  Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Restraining Order against PRADA  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Bypass Bar on Revision of Interlocutory Order by Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi HC: Prosecutrix’s Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination Weakens the Case  ||  Bom. HC: No Provision under JJ Act that Allows Adoption of a Child of Foreign Citizenship  ||  SC Passes Order to Prevent Russian Mother’s Attempt to Flee with Child  ||  SC: Deprivation of Natural Heir from Will May Not Raise Suspicion  ||  SC: Denying Female Heir Right in Property Only Exacerbates Gender Division    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved