Dismissed¶57

Nawbar Mamu Irani @ Nawbar Yusuf @ Jafari v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Jul 2025WP/3526/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; writ of habeas corpus; illegal arrest; production before Magistrate within 24 hours; Section 58 BNSS; grounds of arrest; Sections 47 and 48 BNSS; notice under Section 179 BNSS; Sections 309(6), 3(5), 351(3) BNS; Section 304(2) BNS; chain snatching; Thane; Kalyan; Guntakal Andhra Pradesh; Crime Branch Unit 3 Kalyan; FIR No. 39 of 2025 Rabodi Police Station; FIR No. 775 of 2024 Kolsewadi Police Station; arrest memo; remand to judicial custody; Thane Central Prison; criminal writ petition dismissed; rule discharged.

What did the court decide?

None; the habeas corpus Petition was dismissed, Rule discharged with no order as to costs. ¶57

Nawbar Mamu Irani @ Nawbar Yusuf @ Jafari vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the habeas corpus Petition was dismissed, Rule discharged with no order as to costs.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the arrest of the petitioner's daughter Kausar on 11 May 2025 was illegal because she was allegedly detained for more than 24 hours before being produced before the learned Magistrate. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

On the record (the Section 179 BNSS notice bearing the endorsement of the SHO, Guntakal One Town Police Station, and the Station Diary for 7-10 May 2025), the accused was questioned at Guntakal on 9 May 2025 in connection with Kolsewadi FIR No. 775 of 2024 but was not arrested there; the pleaded arrest at Guntakal on 9 May 2025 is disproved.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The accused was arrested on 11 May 2025 near Vadavali village by a police team distinct from the one that had visited Guntakal, in connection with FIR No. 39 of 2025 of Rabodi Police Station; she was formally arrested at 15:21 hours that day and produced before the learned Magistrate at 13:05 hours on 12 May 2025, and hence there is no violation of Section 58 of the BNSS.

¶53

Key takeaways

The grounds of arrest were furnished to the accused and duly acknowledged by her signing the arrest memo annexed at page 72 of the Reply Affidavit.ratio¶56
The grounds of arrest were further communicated to the relatives of the accused (acknowledgement annexed at page 73 of the Reply Affidavit); the learned Magistrate recorded his satisfaction regarding compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and the Court found no reason to disbelieve it.ratio¶56
Although the contradictions in the pleading were deemed sufficient to warrant dismissal, the Court expressly chose to ignore them for the purposes of the Order, resting instead on the record.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas corpus writ petition by the mother of detenue Kausar Yusuf Ali Jafari @ Bushi challenging her arrest dated 11 May 2025 on two grounds: (i) detention for more than 24 hours before production before the Magistrate; and (ii) non-furnishing of the grounds/reasons of arrest (Sections 47, 48 and 58, BNSS). Examining the police case diaries for Rabodi FIR No. 39 of 2025 and Kolsewadi FIR No. 775 of 2024 and the reply affidavit, the Court (per Gautam A. Ankhad, J., coram Ghuge & Ankhad, JJ.) found that the accused was only questioned at Guntakal (A.P.) on 9 May 2025 under a notice under Section 179 BNSS, endorsed by the SHO, Guntakal One Town Police Station, and was not arrested there; she was located at Vadavali village on 11 May 2025 by a separate police team, medically examined at 15:10 hours, formally arrested at 15:21 hours in connection with Rabodi FIR No. 39 of 2025, and produced before the learned Magistrate at 13:05 hours on 12 May 2025 - hence no violation of Section 58 BNSS. The grounds of arrest were furnished and acknowledged by her signature (memo at page 72 of the Reply Affidavit) and communicated to her relatives (acknowledgement at page 73); the learned Magistrate recorded satisfaction as to Sections 47 and 48 BNSS and remanded her to judicial custody. Though contradictions in the pleading were noted, they were expressly ignored; the Petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed, Rule discharged, with no order as to costs.

¶1

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3526 OF 2025

¶4

ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME

¶5

Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2025.09.03 15:11:37 +0530

¶6

NAWBAR MAMU IRANI @ NAWBAR YUSUF ALI JAFARI Age : 57 years, Occ : Housewife Resident of Indira Nagar, near Irani Masjid Ambivali, Kalyan(West)

¶7

Mother of Ms. Kausar Yusuf Ali Jafari @ Bushi presently at Thane Central Prison

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA through the Senior Inspector of Rabodi Police Station, Thane City.

¶11

AJIT SHINDE

¶12

Senior Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch Unit No. 3, Kalyan Police Station.

¶13

THE POLICE COMMISSIONER , Thane.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Mr. Rajay Gaikwad a/w. Ms. Shraddha Vavhal, Advocates, for the Petitioner

¶16

Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP, for the Respondent - State

¶17

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. RESERVED ON : 18^th AUGUST, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 3^rd SEPTEMBER, 2025 Anand 1/8

¶18

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶19

JUDGMENT (PER : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)

¶20

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶21

parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

¶22

The Petitioner is the mother of Ms. Kausar Yusuf Ali Jafari @ Bushi (‘ Kausar/Accused ’) who is presently lodged at the Thane Central Prison. The Petitioner has filed the Writ of Habeas Corpus to declare that Kausar’s arrest on 11^th May, 2025 is illegal and violates her fundamental rights. This is on two grounds :-

¶23

(i) She was detained for more than 24 hours before being produced before the learned Magistrate; and

¶24

(ii) The reasons for arrest were not furnished to her or her family.

¶25

We have tried to decipher the Petitioner’s case, in a poorly drafted Petition. The facts that emerge from pages 9 – 13 of the Petition are as follows :-

¶26

(a) On 18^th January 2025, a FIR was registered with the Rabodi Police Station, Thane, vide C.R. No. 39 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 3(5) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( “BNS” ). On 9^th May 2025, Kausar’s brother, one Wasim Yusuf Sayyed @

¶27

Anand 2/8

¶28

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶29

Wasim Kala was arrested in relation to this Complaint. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on 12^th May, 2025 and sent to police custody.

¶30

(b) On page 10 – paragraph 2 of the Petition, it is pleaded that at 6 a.m. on 9^th May 2025, Kausar was arrested from Guntakal, One Town Police Station (Andhra Pradesh). We will assume that this ‘One Town Police Station at Guntakal’ exists. She was then brought to her parental home in Kalyan at 7.30 p.m. on 11^th May 2025. She was produced before the learned Magistrate on 12^th May, 2025 and remanded to magisterial custody. (In the same paragraph it is pleaded that Kausar was not produced before the learned Magistrate, which we will ignore for the time being) whereas on page 9 – paragraph 2 of the Petition, it is pleaded that Kausar was shown as arrested on 11^th May 2025 at 15.21 hours and was brought along with Wasim also before the learned Magistrate on 12^th May, 2025. This was for an alleged offence registered on 18^th January, 2025.

¶31

(c) On the basis of the case set out at page 10, it was argued that Kausar was produced before the learned Magistrate after almost three days. She was not informed of her grounds for arrest. Thus, her arrest violates her fundamental rights as well as Sections 47, 48 and 58 of the BNSS. Hence this Petition.

¶32

Anand 3/8

¶33

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶34

Mr. Gavand, learned APP had the onerous task of clearing the confusion. To simplify matters, he relied upon :-

¶35

(i) Affidavit-in-reply dated 14^th July, 2025 filed by Santosh Ugalmugale, Assistant Police Inspector presently attached to the Crime Branch, Unit 3, Kalyan, Thane City, which explains the offence and procedure followed by the police;

¶36

(ii) Police Case Diary for FIR No. 39 of 2025 registered with the Rabodi Police Station, Thane; and

¶37

(iii) Police Case Diary for FIR No. 775 of 2024 registered with the Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan (East).

¶38

Mr. Gavand denied the contentions of the Petitioner and submitted that the present Petition ought to be dismissed. He submitted that the offence pertains to chain snatching and several FIRs were registered. For the present case, two FIRs are relevant, namely:-

¶39

(i) FIR No. 39 of 2025 registered with the Rabodi Police Station, Thane for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 3(5), 351(3) of the BNS against unknown persons; and

¶40

(ii) FIR No. 775 of 2025 registered with the Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan (East) under Section 304(2) of the BNS again on chain-snatching from the Informant.

¶41

Anand 4/8

¶42

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶43

Mr. Gavand submitted that there were several FIRs registered in

¶44

and around Thane / Kalyan region in respect of similar offences. As per the directions of the Police Commissioner, the investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch Unit 3, Kalyan. Several persons including Wasim Yusuf were arrested in the course of investigation. During such investigation, it was revealed that Kausar, who was an accused in the Kolsewadi FIR No. 775 of 2025, was likely to be at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. On 7^th May 2025, after taking the relevant permissions, a team of police officials proceeded to Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. At Guntakal, as Kausar gave evasive responses, a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS was served on her, directing her to report before Crime Branch Unit 3, Kalyan at the earliest. The said notice is annexed to the reply affidavit. Corresponding entries were also made in the Station Diary on 7^th May, 2025 prior to departure from the Crime Branch Unit and again on 10^th May, 2025 after the team’s return from Guntakal. It is, thus, submitted that the Accused, Ms. Kausar, was neither arrested on 9^th May, 2025 nor brought from Guntakal to Mumbai/ Kalyan by the said team.

¶45

Meanwhile, on 11^th May 2025, Wasim Yusuf, who had been arrested in FIR No. 39 of 2025, disclosed to the police that the stolen jewellery had been handed over to the Accused. It is submitted that Mr. Kiran Bhise, PSI

¶46

Anand 5/8

¶47

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶48

received information that the Accused had come to Kalyan. A search was accordingly conducted, and on the same day, the Accused was located at Vadvali village by PSI Bhise and thereafter brought to the Crime Branch Unit with the assistance of lady constable Ms. Jyotsna Kumbhare. The Accused was taken for medical examination at 15:10 hours and was arrested at 15:21 hours on 11^th May, 2025. She was served with a memo setting out the grounds of arrest, which she acknowledged by signing the office copy. Her family was also informed of the grounds of arrest. On 12^th May 2025, at 13:05 hours, the Accused was produced before the learned Magistrate within the stipulated period of 24 hours. It was, therefore, submitted that the Accused was arrested strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the BNSS. In view thereof, Mr. Gavand contended that the Petition is without merit.

¶49

We have perused the record and heard the learned Counsels for the parties. We have also examined the Police Case Diaries relating to FIR No. 39 of 2025 registered at Rabodi Police Station, Thane, and FIR No. 775 of 2024 registered at Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan. In our view, the Petition is devoid of merit. The contradictions noted herein above are sufficient to warrant its dismissal. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Order, we have chosen to ignore those contradictions.

¶50

Anand 6/8

¶51

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶52

We have examined the record. It reveals that Kausar’s involvement was disclosed by her brother. The Accused was questioned by the police on 9^th May, 2025 at Guntakal (A.P.) in connection with FIR No. 775 of 2024 registered at Kolsewadi Police Station. She was served with a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS in the presence of the local police and directed to report to the Crime Branch at Kalyan for further inquiry before the case IO. The office copy bears the endorsement of the SHO, Guntakal, One Town Police Station. We have also perused the Station Diary of Kolsewadi Police Station for the period between 7^th and 10^th May, 2025. The record makes it clear that the Accused was not arrested at Guntakal.

¶53

The record further shows that the Accused was arrested on 11^th May, 2025 by another police team near Vadavali village in Kalyan District, which was distinct from the team that had visited Guntakal. Kausar’s arrest was in connection with FIR No. 39 of 2025 registered at Rabodi Police Station, Thane. Following her arrest, she was brought to the Crime Branch office at Kalyan with the assistance of a lady constable, taken for medical examination the same day, and formally arrested at 15:21 hours on 11^th May, 2025. She was, thereafter, produced before the learned Magistrate at 13:05 hours on 12^th May 2025. Hence, we find no violation of Section 58 of the BNSS.

¶54

Anand 7/8

¶55

WP 3526-2025 (J).odt

¶56

We also find that the Accused was furnished with the grounds of arrest, which she duly acknowledged by signing the arrest memo annexed at page 72 of the Reply Affidavit. The grounds of arrest were further communicated to the relatives of the Accused, who were present to oppose the remand Application, and their acknowledgement is annexed at page 73 of the Reply Affidavit. The learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction regarding compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. We find no reason to disbelieve the same. The learned Magistrate accordingly remanded the Accused to judicial custody. This Petition for Habeas Corpus , being devoid

¶57

of merit, stands dismissed . Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

¶58

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

¶59

Anand 8/8

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
FIR No. 39 of 2025 (C.R. No. 39 of 2025) registered at Rabodi Police Station, Thane on 18 January 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 3(5) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.¶26
Prior proceeding
Wasim Yusuf Sayyed @ Wasim Kala, brother of the accused, arrested in relation to the said complaint; produced before the learned Magistrate on 12 May 2025 and sent to police custody.¶29
Prior proceeding
Investigation of several similar chain-snatching FIRs in and around Thane/Kalyan handed over to Crime Branch Unit 3, Kalyan as per the directions of the Police Commissioner; several persons, including Wasim Yusuf, arrested in the course of investigation.¶44
Prior proceeding
Police team proceeded to Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh on 7 May 2025 after permissions; the accused was questioned there on 9 May 2025 in connection with Kolsewadi FIR No. 775 of 2024 and served a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS directing her to report before Crime Branch Unit 3, Kalyan; corresponding Station Diary entries made on 7 and 10 May 2025.¶44
Prior proceeding
On 11 May 2025, after Wasim disclosed that the stolen jewellery had been handed over to the accused and information was received that she had come to Kalyan, a search was conducted and the accused was located at Vadvali village by PSI Kiran Bhise and brought to the Crime Branch Unit with lady constable Ms. Jyotsna Kumbhare.¶48
Prior proceeding
The accused was taken for medical examination at 15:10 hours and formally arrested at 15:21 hours on 11 May 2025; a memo setting out the grounds of arrest was served, acknowledged by her signature, and her family was informed of the grounds of arrest.¶53
Prior proceeding
The accused was produced before the learned Magistrate at 13:05 hours on 12 May 2025, within the stipulated period of 24 hours of arrest.¶48
Prior proceeding
The learned Magistrate recorded satisfaction regarding compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and remanded the accused to judicial custody.¶56

Nawbar Mamu Irani @ Nawbar Yusuf @ Jafari v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawbar Mamu Irani @ Nawbar Yusuf @ Jafari v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagar Dattatray Chorghe vs the State of Maharashtra Throu the Sec. Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Snehal Raosaheb Koli and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary, School Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Jaydeep S/O. Raju Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Meenakshi Jaywant Paradhi Nee Minakshi Jayaram Salunke vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. School Education and Sports Dept and Ors.

Sunny Bhadri Gupta @ Manish Singh @ Fauji vs State of Maharashtra

Pankaj Chaganbhai Gohil vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.