Dismissed¶30

Balaji Dnyanoba Padile v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Jan 2026WP/1019/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aurangabad Bench, Bombay High Court; Criminal Writ Petition No. 1019 of 2025; illegal detention; production before CJM within 24 hours; station diary entry No.142/2025; call data records (CDR); Superintendent of Police, Latur; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; contraband MD; PSI Rajesh Ghadge; Tulshiram Barure; respondent No.3 Rajabhau Ghadge; co-accused Maya Kamble; Sanyam Balaji Padile; police control room diary extracts; petition dismissed; rule discharged; Sandipkumar C. More, J.; Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.

What did the court decide?

There is no supporting material on record to establish that the son of the petitioner was in fact taken into custody between 8.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on 22.05.2025 by respondent Nos.2 and 3. ¶30

Balaji Dnyanoba Padile vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the son of the petitioner was taken into police custody between 8.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on 22.05.2025 and thereby kept in detention beyond 24 hours before production before the CJM, Latur, amounting to illegal detention. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

There is no supporting material on record to establish that the son of the petitioner was in fact taken into custody between 8.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on 22.05.2025 by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

As per station diary entry No.142/2025 dated 22.05.2025, the son of the petitioner was taken in possession at 4.50 p.m. on 22.05.2025; since he was produced before the CJM, Latur at 4.05 p.m. on 23.05.2025, i.e. within 24 hours of his arrest, there was no illegal detention.

¶26

Key takeaways

From other investigation details, namely verification of the mobile phone of the son of the petitioner and screenshots of amounts sent to co-accused Maya Kamble, his involvement in the crime was apparent.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench) by Balaji Dnyanoba Padile seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Latur to personally conduct a fair and impartial enquiry, including by calling call data records, into the alleged illegal detention of his son Sanyam Balaji Padile, said to have been taken from his residence between 8.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on 22.05.2025 by police officers (PSI Rajesh Ghadge and Tulshiram Barure) in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur only at 4.05 p.m. on 23.05.2025. The State (respondent No.3 Rajabhau Ghadge) countered that secret information was received at about 16.00 hours on 22.05.2025, the son was arrested at 4.50 p.m. and produced within 24 hours. The Division Bench (Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ.; order per More, J.), relying on station diary entry No.142/2025 dated 22.05.2025 showing the son taken in possession at 4.50 p.m. and finding no material supporting the claimed morning custody, held there was no illegal detention, found no merit in the petition, dismissed it and discharged the rule.

¶1

(1)

¶2

Cri.WP-1019.2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1019 OF 2025

¶5

Balaji Dnyanoba Padile Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Respondent

¶9

Ms. Sonal Parab, a/w Mr. Prathamesh Choudhari, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, A.P.P. for respondents-State.

¶10

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

¶11

Reserved On : 13.02.2026 Pronounced on : 16.02.2026

¶12

Final Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent

¶14

of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP, heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶15

Though the petitioner has claimed various reliefs in the petition, however, at the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is claiming prayer clause (B) only, which reads as under :

¶16

“B) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Superintendent of Police, Latur to personally conduct fair and impartial enquiry

¶17

(2)

¶18

Cri.WP-1019.2025.odt

¶19

into the allegations of the petitioner by calling for the call data records of the son of the petitioner, as well as the officers attached to the office of the Respondent who had detained the son of the petitioner from the place of his residence on 22.05.2025 between 8.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and the manner in which the alleged raid was conducted”.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner namely Sanyam Balaji Padile is a Commerce Graduate and now pursuing his post graduation for Masters in Business Administration from Sai International Institute of Management, Pune since 2023. Sanyam is also assisting the petitioner in his business of restaurant. However, on 22.05.2025 in between 8.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. police officers of respondent State namely PSI Rajesh Ghadge and Mr. Tulshiram Barure, by visiting house of the petitioner, took away Sanyam with them in connection with case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, but surprisingly without showing his arrest, they kept him under illegal detention on 22.05.2025 and belatedly produced him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur at 4.05 p.m. on 23.05.2025 i.e. beyond the span of 24 hours from his detention at 8.00 a.m. on 22.05.2025. Learned counsel for the

¶21

(3)

¶22

Cri.WP-1019.2025.odt petitioner submits that the officer of respondent State did not even care to submit CDR of the son of petitioner showing that he was in the custody of the aforesaid officers without being arrested for more than 24 hours. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought action against the officers of respondent State for keeping the son of the petitioner under illegal detention from 8.00 a..m of 22.05.2025.

¶23

On the contrary, learned APP, by filing reply of respondent No.3 Rajabhau Ghadge strongly opposed the petition on the ground that when police received secret information on 22.05.2025 at about 16.00 hours i.e. 4.00 p.m. at Sut Mill Roadm, Latur that two persons were selling contraband article “MD” illegally, they took entry to that effect in station diary after intimating the said fact to the higher authority and thereafter caught son of the petitioner raid handed with the contraband article. According to him, after confirmation of the involvement of son of the petitioner in the instant rime, respondent No.3 arrested him at 4.50 p.m. on 22.05.2025 and thereafter within a period of 24 hours he was produced before the concerned C.J.M. Latur at 4.05 p.m. on 23.05.2025. Thus, the learned A.P.P. submits that there is no illegal detention of the son of petitioner.

¶24

(4)

¶25

Cri.WP-1019.2025.odt

¶26

We have gone through the police papers and material on record. Though it is contended by the petitioner that his son was accosted in between 8.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on 22.05.2025, but in support of the said fact no concrete material is placed on record by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though argued that the police did not provide any information about CDR of the son of petitioner and that there is no whisper in the say of respondent No.3 as to at what time son of the petitioner was arrested, but it is equally important to note that respondent No.3, alongwith his affidavit-in-reply has also produced extracts of diary of police control room, Latur wherein the details of receiving information and detention of the son of petitioner with other entries in respect of investigation, are mentioned. Though it is not specifically mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 3 about exact time of arrest of the son of petitioner, but as per station diary entry No.142/2025, dated 22.05.2025, it is clearly evident that the son of the petitioner was in fact taken in possession at 4.50 p.m. on 22.05.2025. Obviously when he was produced before the CJM, Latur at 4.05 p.m. on 23.05.2025 i.e. within 24 hours of his arrest, there cannot be any illegal detention in the instant matter. Moreover, from the other details of investigation i.e. verification

¶27

(5)

¶28

Cri.WP-1019.2025.odt

¶29

of mobile of the son of petitioner and screenshots of sending certain amounts to co-accused Maya Kamble, involvement of the son of petitioner in the crime is very much apparent.

¶30

Thus, considering all these facts we are of the opinion that there is no supporting material on record to hold that the son of petitioner was in fact taken into custody in between 8.00 a.m and 9.30 a.m. on 22.05.2025 by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly it stands dismissed.

¶31

Rule is discharged.

¶32

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

VD_Dhirde

Balaji Dnyanoba Padile v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Dnyanoba Padile v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Balaji Shankarrao Annamwar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Nandkishor Bhausaheb Jadhav and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajeet Seeds Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory and Another vs Union of India through Secretary and Others

Nandabai Shyam Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hitesh Dnyaneshwar Patil vs the Police Inspector and Others

The Matoshree Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ashok R Kachole vs Ranjitsingh Deoal Through its Principal Secretary