Criminal Writ Petition challenging police custody. The High Court, finding disputed questions of fact regarding the arrest and procedural irregularities, rejected the petition as devoid of merits and not suitable for judicial adjudication.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
______________________________________________________ 27 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2016
BALKRISHNA S/O DAMODAR AMRUTKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.Nagargoje Prashant M
APP for Respondents/State: Mr.A.R. Borulkar.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Dated: August 16, 2016
Heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned APP appearing
for the respondents / State. With their
able assistance, perused the documents
placed on record and the reply filed by
the respondents.
2.It appears from the documents placed
on record that the concerned Police
Officer, in pursuance of the non bailable
warrant issued to the petitioner, took
the petitioner in custody on 19th June,
2012 at about 12.00 p.m. and thereafter,
he was produced before the Magistrate on
19th June, 2012 at 3.40 p.m. We are not
able to comprehend the submission of the
744.16crwp
2
learned Counsel for the petitioner as to
which procedure was not followed by the
Police Officer. Even, if we take the
contention of the petitioner as it stands
that the petitioner was arrested on 18th
June, 2012 at 7 p.m. and produced before
the Magistrate on 19th June, 2012 at 3.40
p.m., the said arrest and production
before the Magistrate was in pursuance of
the non bailable warrant issued by the
Magistrate. By any stretch of
imagination, we do not think that this is
a case wherein this Court can adjudicate
the prayers for compensation and also
inquiry of the respondent – Officer.
3.In that view of the matter, since the
petition raises disputed questions of
facts, the petition is devoid of any
merits and the same stands rejected.
(K.K. SONAWANE, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J)
kadam/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can adjudicate prayers for compensation and inquiry against the police officer in a criminal writ petition where disputed questions of fact exist.
BALKRISHNA S/O DAMODAR AMRUTKAR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S.S. SHINDE
K.K. SONAWANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court