Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3119 OF 2025
Mr.Ajit Kisan More, Age 24 years. Occ. Farmer, Residing at Nimbut Chapri
Tal. Baramati, Dist. Pune, Currently Lodged at Yerwada
Central Prison at Pune/
) … Petitioner
Through Inspector of Police of Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station
Dist.
) … Respondent
…
Mr.Niranjan Mundargi with Ms.Keral Mehta, Mr.Ranjeet M. Pawar and
Mr.Bhargav S. Pataskar for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, Addl. PP for the Respondent -State.
Mr.Chaitanya Pendse with Mr.Shailesh Chavan and Mr. Sachin Pawar for the Original Complainant/Intervenor.
…
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C), as under:- “A) That after examining the facts, circumstance, material in the chargesheet and remand orders passed by the Ld. JMFC at Baramati Dist. Pune, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 ( 528 of BNSS), thereby declaring the arrest of the Petitioner illegal in Crime No. 283 of 2024, registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences punishable under section 307, 143, 147, 352, 504, 506, 201 of Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 3,25,29 of Arms Act. B) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the arrest of the Petitioner illegal and gross violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under 21 and 22 in relation to F.I.R. no. 283 of 2024, registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station, Dist. Pune and thereby quash and set aside the remand orders dated 01.07.2024 and 04.07.2024 passed by the Ld. JMFC at Baramati Dist. Pune alongwith order below Exhibit 38 dated 17.05.2025 passed by LD Session Court at Baramati Dist. Pune in Session Case no. 190 of 2024. C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate direction to release the Petitioner forthwith by declaring the arrest illegal in FIR No. 283 of 2024 registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station, Dist. Pune”.
3. We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the Petitioner, the learned Addl. PP and the learned Advocates for the Original Complainant/ Intervenor. We have gone through the voluminous record available before us.
4. The issue raised by the Petitioner is that the reasons for his arrest were not communicated to him in writing, when he was arrested on 1st July, 2024.
5. The deceased Ranjit Eknath Nimbalkar, had two bulls, named Sarja and Sundar, which were kept in the custody of one Vitthal Chavan, who was employed as the deceased’s driver. Sarja originally belonged to Accused No.1 and was purchased by the deceased for Rs. 61,00,000/-, a year ago. Thus, the deceased owned a pair of bulls, Sarja and Sundar. These strong bulls were used for bullock racing. The employer (Accused No.1) of the Petitioner was desirous of purchasing Sundar, who was valued at Rs. 37,00,000/-. Accused No.1 paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money and the balance of Rs. 32,00,000/- were agreed to be paid on 27th June, 2024.
6. The dispute arose in a meeting held on 27th June, 2024 and it is alleged that the deceased did not part with the bull Sundar. The police contend that Accused No.1 got infuriated, pulled out his pistol and shot the deceased in the head. Since the present Petitioner was said to be a witness, he was being interrogated. However, during the investigation, it was revealed that Accused No.3 had directed the Petitioner to wash away the blood stains and clean up the crime scene. Hence, during interrogation, the Petitioner was arrested on 1st July, 2024 at 05:04 hours (early morning), on the charge of attempting to destroy evidence,.
7. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 28th June,
2024. The Petitioner was initially being interrogated as a witness, and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.PC) was recorded. However, on 1st July, 2024, during the course of the interrogation, the police authorities arrested him and produced him before the learned Magistrate on the same day.
8. The grievance of the present Petitioner stems from the arrest that was carried out. He has no grievance regarding his production before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours. His only grievance is that he was not intimated of the reasons for his arrest, in writing.
9. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23rd May, 2025 in Kasireddy Upender Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Others[1]. Relevant paragraph nos. 17 and 18, are reproduced here under:-
17. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh while fully concurring with the views expressed by Justice Abhay S. Oka added a few lines of his own as under:
3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends. relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal." (Emphasis supplied)
18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said to have been laid down, rather very well explained, in Vihaan Kumar (supra): a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition. b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Article 22(1). d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. f) If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police authorities. h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.”
10. The learned Addl.PP has entered an affidavit-in-reply through Assistant Police Inspector (API), Mr.Sachin Kale, Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, dated 6th August, 2025, along with several annexures. He points out from the case diary that it was specifically mentioned on internal page no. 12, in the second paragraph, which is reproduced as under: "तसेच सदर गुन्हयातील अनोळखी आरोपी यांना निनष्पन्न करून ४) सचिचन वसंत मोटकट्टे वय २४ वर्षे', राह- गौतम काकडे यांचे कामगार खोलीत निंनबुत छप्री, ता. बारामती जि2.पुणे मुळ रा- बोर2ाईनगर पलुस ता. पलुस जि2. सांगली. ५) अजि2त निकसन मोरे वय २४ वर्षे', राह- गौतम काकडे यांचे कामगार खोलीत निंनबुत छप्री. ता. बारामती जि2.पुणे मुळ रा- निंनबुत लक्ष्मीनगर ता. बारामती जि2.पुणे. निंनबुत भागात शोध घेवुन ताब्यात घेण्यात आले असुन त्यांची वैद्यकीय तपासणी उपजि2ल्हा रूग्णालय बारामती येथे करून घेवुन अटक करतेवेळी गुन्हा रजि2. नंबर व कोणत्या गुन्हयात अटक करत आहे. व अटक करण्याची कारणे सम2ावुन सांगुन अटक े बाबत मा. सवEच्च न्यायालय यांचे मागGदशGक तत्वांचे व सुचनांचे तसेच अटी व शथHचे तंतोतंत पालन करण्यात आले असुन दोन पंचासमक्ष अटक फॉमG भरण्यात आला असुन अटक फॉमGमध्ये आरोपीस अटक करतेवेळी आरोपी क्र ४ यांचे नातेवाईक पत्नी निनकीता सचिचन मोटकट्टे (पत्नी) राह- सदर यांना अटक े बाबत कळनिवण्यात आले असुन आरोपी क्र ५ यांचे नातेवाईक अलका निकसन मोरे (आई) व निकसन पांडुरंग मोरे यांना अटक े बाबत कळनिवण्यात आले आहे. त्याबाबत अटक रजि2स्टरी नोंद घेवुन स्टेशन डायरी करण्यात आली आहे. तसेच आरोपीस सी.आर.पी.सी ४७,४८,५०अ प्रमाणे तोंडी व लेखी सुचनापत्र अदा करण्यात आले असून अटक फॉमG मधील कॉलम नं. ८ मध्ये अटक े ची कारणे व अटक े चे अचिधकार सम2ावुन सांगीतल्याने व सम2ल्याने अटक फॉमGवर दोन पंचसमक्ष आरोपीने सहया क े ल्या आहेत. आरोपी क्र ४ व ५ यांचे अटक े बाबतचे आधारभुत मुद्ये (ग्राउन्ड ऑफ अरेस्ट) १) आपणानिवरूध्द गंभीर स्वरूपाचा गु. रजि2. नं. २८३ /२०२४,भा.दं.निव.क.३०७,३०२,१४३,१४७,१४९,३५२, ५०४,५०६,२०१ आमG अॅ^क्ट ३.२५ दाखल असुन सदर गुन्हा क े ल्याचे तपासात निनष्पन झाले आहे. २) सदरचा गुन्हा घडतेवेळी आपणास साक्षीदार व निफयाGदी यांनी प्रत्यक्ष पाहीले आहे. व तपासमध्ये निनष्पन्न झाले आहे. ४) आपण सदरचा गुन्हा क े ल्याचे प्रथमदशGनी तपासात आरोपी क्र १ यांचे सांगणेवरून निफयाGदी साक्षीदार व मयत रणजि2त निंनबाळकर यांस मारण्यास येवुन गुन्हा क े ल्याचे निनष्पन्न होत असल्याने आपणस अटक करण्यात येत आहे"
11. He, therefore, submits on instructions that the Petitioner was made aware of the reasons for his arrest. He has then referred to the remand application dated 1st July 2024, placed before the concerned Court while seeking remand of all the Accused persons. He also points out from the reply tendered by the learned APP before the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2024, that the department had taken a firm stand that there was total compliance of Section 50 of the Cr.PC.
12. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner points out that, in the first remand application dated 1st July, 2024, insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, the reasons for remand have not been specified against the present Petitioner. There is no whisper as to why the authorities are seeking the remand of the present Petitioner. It is recorded in the narration that since Accused No.3 Shahaji Kakade had asked the Petitioner to wash away the bloodstains and destroy evidence, Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), was invoked, and a noting was made in the station diary.
13. He then points out a startling aspect of the matter. A Panch, namely, Dilip Shankar Hirave, filed an affidavit before the Trial Court on 9th May, 2025. The significant portion is reproduced, as under: "आमचे समक्ष पोलिलसांनी इसम नामे अजि2त निकसन मोरे यांना त्यांस कोणत्या गुन्ह्यामध्ये कोणत्या कारणासाठी अटक करण्यात येत आहे याची इत्यंभूत मानिहती थोडी सम2ावून सांनिगतली. ….. अटक े ची करणे कागदावर लिलखीत स्वरूपात नमूद करून त्यांचे हातात देण्यात आला होती व त्यांना अटक क े लेबाबत निकसन पांडुरंग मोरे यांना देखील आमचे समक्ष कळनिवणेत आले होते. सदर वेळी वडगांव निंनबाळकर पोलीस स्टेशन येथे ह2ारोंच्या संख्येने 2माव 2मलेला होता. अशा परिरस्थिस्थतीही पोलीस निनरीक्षक सचिचन काळे यांनी इसम नामे अजि2त निकसन मोरे यांस अटक े ची कारणे माझे समोर लिलहून निदली होती. सदर अटक े ची कारणे अजि2त निकसन मोरे यास लेखी तसेच तोंडी स्वरूपात निदल्यामुळे त्याचा अटक े चा फॉमG तयार करण्यात आला. सदर अटक फॉमG मधील कॉलम नं. ८ मध्ये अटक े ची करणे व कायदेशीर अचिधकार पोलिलसांनी सम2ावून सांनिगतले बाबतचा उल्लेख करून सदर करणे व कायदेशीर अचिधकार सम2ले बाबतची पुष्टी झालेनंतर सदर आरोपी इसमाने अटक फॉमGच्या शेवटच्या पानावर त्याचे फोटोशे2ारी आमचे समक्ष सही क े लेली आहे.”
14. In the backdrop of the above submissions, we have analyzed the entire documents placed before us in this proceeding. We have perused the Arrest / Court Surrender Form at page no. 133, dated 1st July, 2024, more specifically Clause No. 8, where in the reasons for arresting a person are always required to be mentioned along with the date, time and place, with a narration of the reasons. The entire clause in the said form is left blank in this case. Not a single word has been typed in the Arrest Form to indicate that the Petitioner was made aware of the grounds for his arrest.
15. The learned Addl.PP is under instructions to canvass that the police authorities do not possess any acknowledgment of having served the written reasons for the arrest, to the Petitioner. When called upon, he submits, on instructions, that the police authorities do not have any such paper or document which would indicate that the reasons were written down in black and white and which could be said to have being served upon the Petitioner.
16. Apparently, the police are attempting to mislead us. The learned Addl.PP has then canvassed on instructions that, when it was mentioned in the remand application dated 1st July, 2024 that the present Petitioner was arrested because he washed away the bloodstains on the directions of Shahaji Kakade, this would amount to conveying the reasons to the Petitioner. Shahaji Kakade is part of the close blood lineage of the family of Accused No.1. Accused No. 3 is a member of the same family, which employed the Petitioner.
17. In the backdrop of the contention put forth by the Petitioner, we are referring to the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar versus State of Haryana & Anr.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only significant to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
18. Sections 50 and 50A of the Cr.PC, read as under: “Section 50. Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a nonbailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.” “Section 50A. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to a nominated person. -- (1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information. (2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government. (4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.”
19. It is thus, crystallized in Vihaan Kumar (supra), that the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue is not merely a formality, but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest.
20. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded in paragraph No. 18 (e) that on the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.
21. From the records, two things become absolutely clear. Firstly, that the Petitioner was not communicated the reasons of arrest in writing and, secondly, the Panch, Dilip Shankar Hirave, has executed a false affidavit, the marked portion of which is reproduced herein above, indicating a false statement that the present Petitioner was served with a written sheet containing the reasons for his arrest.
22. Mr.Sachin Kale, API, has addressed the learned Magistrate that the principles culled out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (judgment not cited or referred to in his communication), have been scrupulously followed while arresting the Petitioner.
23. The Panch, Dilip Shankar Hirave, has the courage to say on oath that the reasons for arrest were written on a sheet of paper in his presence and that it was served on the Petitioner. In the station diary, a reproduced portion of which is set forth herein above, it is recorded that the reasons for arrest were served on the Petitioner in writing. What shocks our conscience is that there is no such sheet of paper on which such reasons were written down or were served upon the Petitioner. The police authorities neither have any record of such communication nor do they possess any acknowledgment from the Petitioner. A completely false statement is being made, with impunity.
24. This conduct of the police authorities is exposed in paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 6th August 2025, affirmed by the same Mr.Sachin Kale, API stating that “I say that during the course of investigation, I have arrested the Petitioner on 01.07.2024 at 05.04 hrs. and personally informed him grounds of his arrest, and the said fact mentioned in Station Diary dated 01.07.2024 at 05.04 hrs. maintained at Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune Rural, Dist: Pune and accordingly, Case Diary to that effect was made on 01.07.2024 vide Case Diary No. 4”.
25. The police authorities are not in a position to show us any such document which would substantiate their stand, notwithstanding paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, adverted to herein above. It is a clear case that the reasons for arrest were not conveyed to the Petitioner in writing.
26. The learned Advocate representing the Informant (wife of the deceased) who is assisting the learned Addl.PP., has opposed this Petition and submits that the issue as to whether the reasons for arresting a person are to be communicated orally or in writing, is a matter before the Full Bench of this Court. He further submits that the issue originating from an order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, concluding that the reasons for arrest need not be always intimated in writing to the person being arrested, is a subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.[1] which is now reserved for judgment. 1 SLP (Cri) No. 17132 of 2023
27. Notwithstanding the above submissions, there is no dispute that the views taken in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), hold the field, as on date.
28. As such, this Writ Petition is allowed. The arrest of the Petitioner dated 1st July, 2024 is declared illegal. We direct the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune, to issue appropriate orders in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2024, for releasing the Petitioner from jail, if not required to be detained in any other case.
29. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
30. The parties shall act upon a print-out copy of this order obtained from the official website of the Bombay High Court. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)