Vinit Kumar Hemraj Bohra / Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2012WP/489/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus alleging illegal detention by police officers and failure to register a complaint. The court, noting previous observations in a related habeas corpus petition by the petitioner's brother, rejected the writ but directed the petitioner to avail statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; statutory remedies under CrPC, 1973 available to the petitioner.

Vinit Kumar Hemraj Bohra / Jain Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

67-WP-489-2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 489 OF 2011

¶4

Shri Vinit Kumar Hemraj Bohra/Jain .. Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.

¶5

Mr. S. G. Deshmukh i/b. Mr. M. N. Jain, for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. S. Pai, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. K. S. Patil, for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

¶6

CORAM: A.S.OKA &

¶7

SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ. DATE : 19^th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶8

P.C:-

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶10

2 By this Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that he was illegally detained by 5^th to 10^th Respondents who are Officers of the Police from 16^th November, 2010 to 20^th November, 2010 and extortion money was continuously demanded from the Petitioner. It is further alleged that 8^th to 10^th Respondents illegally detained the Petitioner in custody from 17^th November, 2010 to 20^th November, 2010. The first prayer in the Petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing 2^nd to 4^th Respondents to

1 of 5

appropraiteS.R.JOSHI

67-WP-489-2011

appoint any other Officer to take necessary/appropriate action on the basis of the complaint filed by the Petitioner. Another prayer is made for directing the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take appropriate action against 5^th to 10^th Respondents.

¶15

3 By amendment, a prayer has been incorporated for directing the 2^nd to 4^th Respondents to register offences against Respondents Nos.5 to 10 under the various Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, prayers are made for prosecuting and punishing the concerned Respondents for keeping the Petitioner in illegal detention. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has invited our attention to various decisions.

¶16

4 In the Judgment and Order dated 7^th December, 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3342 of 2010 praying for writ of habeas corpus filed by the Petitioner's brother, the issue of the alleged illegal detention from 16^th November, 2011 has been considered. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the observations made therein are based on an incorrect submissions made before this Court by the learned APP and there is enough material on record to show that from 16^th November, 2010, the Petitioner was illegally detained.

2 of 5

appropraiteS.R.JOSHI

67-WP-489-2011

5 We have carefully considered the submissions. It is necessary to make a reference to the Judgment and Order dated 7^th December, 2010 passed by this Court in the Petition filed by the Petitioner's brother. In paragraph no.2 of the Judgment, this Court has noted the contention that the Petitioner was picked up by the Respondents on 16^th November, 2010 from his jewellery shop at 11.00 a.m. In paragraph no.3 of the Judgment, this Court has observed thus:-

¶21

“Suffice it to observe that the fact that said Vinit Kumar Jain was picked up from the jewellery shop on 16^th November, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. has not been established by the Petitioner at all.”

¶22

6 In paragraph no.4, this Court has observed thus:-

¶23

“Whereas the complaint made before the concerned Magistrate when the said Vinit Kumar Jain was produced before the Vacation Court on 21^st November, 2010 is that he was, in fact, arrested on 18^th November, 2010. This stand of Vinit Kumar Jain belies the assertion of the petitioner that Vinit Kumar Jain was, in fact, picked up from the jewellery shop on 16^th November, 2010 at about 11.00 a.m. as stated in paragraph-3 of the petition. Whether there is substance in the grievance made by the said Vinit Kumar Jain before the Vacation Court when he was produced on 21^st November, 2010 that he was, in fact, arrested on 18^th November, 2010 and was produced only on 21^st November, 2010 after lapse of statutory period and that his continued arrest was, therefore, illegal is a matter which can be inquired into by the appropriate Court at appropriate stage. We find no merit in this petition. The is disposed of with the above observations.”

¶24

7 It must be noted that the said Petition was prosecuted by the

3 of 5

appropraiteS.R.JOSHI

67-WP-489-2011

Petitioner's brother after the Petitioner was set at liberty. The very contention that the Petitioner was illegally detained from 16^th November, 2010 by the Police was not accepted by this Court. In paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the said Judgment, this Court has dealt with the contention that the Petitioner was picked up on 16^th November, 2010. In the paragraph no.4, the Division Bench has observed that the alleged illegal detention of the present Petitioner is a matter which can be inquired into by the appropriate Court at appropriate stage.

¶29

8 In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench, this is not a fit case to issue a writ of mandamus on the basis of allegations of the Petitioner that he was illegally picked up on 16^th November, 2010 and was illegally detained. As far as the registration of complaint is concerned, this is case where the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [ (2008) 2 SCC-409] will have to be followed and the Petitioner will have to be relegated to the statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶30

9 Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected while keeping open the statutory remedies of the Petitioner.

4 of 5

appropraiteS.R.JOSHI

67-WP-489-2011

10 We must made it clear that we have not made final

¶35

adjudication on the grievances made by the Petitioner.

¶36

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J.)

¶37

(A.S. OKA,J.)

¶38

5 of 5

¶39

appropraiteS.R.JOSHI

Vinit Kumar Hemraj Bohra / Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinit Kumar Hemraj Bohra / Jain v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanmant Jalindar Langar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Govind Tukaram Lad Vs the State of Maharashra and Ors.

Sikandar Shripal Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Fazal Mehmood Mohammed Rasool Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharat Odhavji Solanki and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manav Dristi Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.