In a writ petition challenging the legality of arrest and detention in a murder case, the court found no merit in the petitions. It held that the cited Supreme Court precedents were not applicable to the specific facts and refused to scan the material or grant the prayers at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
T
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.801 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Mr. Subhash Jha i/b M/s Law Global, for the petitioners. Mrs S.D.Shinde, APP, for the State. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE AND A.R.JOSH, JJ. DATE : 28/04/2010 PC:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
This petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India is filed with unusual prayers. The petitioners are accused in C.R. No. 353 of 2009 registered by Vile Parle Police Station for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of IPC. We deem it appropriate to quote all the substantive prayers in the writ petition.
“(a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent nos 1 and 2 to initiate
2
departmental inquiry and/or such inquiry as may be deemed necessary to probe into the matter concerning arrest/detention of the petitioners in C.R No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai;
(b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus against thereby directing the respondent nos 1 and 2, to launch prosecution against the respondent no.3 and all other police personnel responsible for aiding and abating in commission of offences punishable u/s 177,181, 182,193, 195,199, 204,209,211 r/w section 120-B of Indian Penal Code during the course of investigation of C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai;
(c) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to appoint some police officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of police to investigate and/or inquire into the matter leading to arrest/detention of the petitioners i C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai;
(d) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to monitor such investigation/inquiry and that the report of such investigation/inquiry be submitted in this Hon’ble Court within such reasonable time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
(e) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to initiate suo motu
3
proceeding against the respondent no.3 for effecting arrest of the petitioners on 18.8.2009 in C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai for any flagrant violation of the dicta of the Apex Court in the matter of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP – 1994(4) SCC 260 and also in the matter of Lal Kamlendra PratapSingh V/s State of UP (2009) 4 SCC 437;
(f) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.50 lacs each to the petitioners or such amount as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit ad proper in the interest of justice and good conscience for illegal detention/torture of the petitioners in custody since 18.8.2009 in C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle,Mumbai;
There is no dispute that the petitioners came to be arrested in connection with the aforementioned C.R on 18.8.2009 and they were produced before the learned Magistrate on 19.8.2009. The learned Magistrate granted the police custody. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed. We are informed that after the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Court has
4
framed the charges. We are also informed that both the petitioners are on bail granted by this court. It is against this backdrop, Mr Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that from perusal of the chargesheet and the material relied upon by the prosecution attached to the chargesheet, it is clear that except the statement of one Ranjish Choudhary, which was recorded on 27.8.2009, there is absolutely no other material on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged incident of murder. In view thereof, he submitted that the arrest of the petitioners on 18.8.2009 in connection with the crime was illegal and their detention from the dateof arrest till the statement of Ranjish Choudhariy was recorded on 27.8.2009, was also illegal. He placed heavy reliance upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP and ors, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 260 and Lal Kamlendra
5
Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP and ors, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 437. He submitted that the police in the present case committed grave illegality in arresting the petitioners without there being any material to justify the arrest. We have perused the entire material placed before the Court so also the judgments relied upon by Mr Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the judgments relied upon by Mr Jha do not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be difficult at this stage to appreciate and consider the submissions advanced by Mr Jha and to grant the prayers made in the writ petition. It would be premature to scan the material on record and to hold that the arrest of the accused, who are involved in the heinous offence of murder was illegal and so also to hold that their detention between 18.8.09 and 27.9.09 was illegal. In the circumstances,
6
we find no merits in the petition. The writ
petition is dismissed.
(A.R.JOSHI , J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioners in murder case was illegal lacking material support.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joginder Kumar Vs State of UPReferred¶16
Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP – 1994(4) SCC 260 · Who else cites this
Lal Kamlendra PratapSingh V/s State of UPReferred¶16
Lal Kamlendra PratapSingh V/s State of UP (2009) 4 SCC 437 · Who else cites this
Petitioners
State
D.B. Bhosale
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
