Writ Petition No. 801 of 2010 · Bombay High Court

prayers in the writ petition. that this Hon’ble Court may “(a) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or in the nature of direction mandamus thereby directing the respondent nos 1 and 2 to initiate 2 departmental inquiry and/or such inquiry as may be deemed necessary to probe into the matter concerning arrest/detention of the petitioners in C.R No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai; (b) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus against thereby directing the respondent nos 1 and 2, to launch prosecution against the respondent no.3 and all other police personnel responsible for aiding and abating in commission of offences punishable u/s 177,181, 182,193, 195,199, 204,209,211 r/w section 120-B of Indian Penal Code during the course of investigation of C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai; (c) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to appoint some police officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of police to investigate and/or inquire into the matter leading to arrest/detention of the petitioners i C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai; (d) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to monitor such investigation/inquiry and that the report of such investigation/inquiry be submitted in this Hon’ble Court within such reasonable time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; (e) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to initiate suo motu 3 proceeding against the respondent no.3 for effecting arrest of the petitioners on 18.8.2009 C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Parle Police Station, Vile Parle, Mumbai for any flagrant violation of the dicta of the Apex Court in the matter of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP – 1994(4) SCC 260 and also in the Kamlendra Lal matter PratapSingh V/s State of UP (2009) 4 SCC 437; (f) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.50 lacs each to the petitioners or such amount as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit ad proper in the interest of justice and good conscience for illegal detention/torture of the petitioners in custody since 18.8.2009 in C.R.No.353/09 of Vile Vile Parle Police Station, Parle, Mumbai; There is no dispute that the petitioners came to be arrested in connection with the aforementioned C.R on 18.8.2009 and they were produced before the learned Magistrate on

19.8.2009. The learned Magistrate granted the police custody. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and chargesheet was filed. We are informed that after the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Court has 4 framed the charges. We are also informed that both the petitioners are on bail granted by this court. It is against this backdrop, Mr Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that from perusal of the chargesheet and the material relied upon by the prosecution attached to the chargesheet, it is clear that except the statement of one Ranjish Choudhary, which was recorded on

27.8.2009, there is absolutely no other material on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged incident of murder. In view thereof, he submitted that the arrest of the petitioners on

18.8.2009 in connection with the crime was illegal and their detention from the date of arrest till the statement Ranjish Choudhariy was recorded on

27.8.2009, was also illegal. He placed heavy reliance upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP and ors, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 260 and Lal Kamlendra 5 Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP and ors, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 437. He submitted that the police in the present case committed grave illegality in arresting the petitioners without there being any material to justify the arrest. We have perused the entire material placed before the Court so also the judgments relied upon by Mr Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the judgments relied upon by Mr Jha do not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be difficult at this stage to appreciate and consider the submissions advanced by Mr Jha and to grant the prayers made in the writ petition. It would be premature to scan the material on record and to hold that the arrest of the accused, who are involved in the heinous offence of murder was illegal and so also to hold that their detention between 18.8.09 and 27.9.09 was illegal. In the circumstances, 6 we find no merits in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 7