Dadasaheb v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

It is submitted that the applicant was supplied the grounds ofarrest in writing as well as orally and no prejudice is caused to him. It issubmitted that the applicant had legal assistance since day one. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sanjeeva Deshpande submits that theapplicant was aware of the grounds of arrest and he had legal assistance sincebeginning. It is submitted that no prejudice is shown by the applicant. He hadopportunity to agitate the ground before the Supreme Court. He did not evenchallenge the order dated 13.03.2025. It is submitted that applicant is estoppedfrom raising plea that his arrest is unlawful.CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTUAL ASPECT9.FIR is lodged by the victim himself on 13.03.2025 for the incidentwhich occurred from 23.01.2024 to 25.01.2024. The informant and his familymembers were at loggerhead with the applicant because applicant’s fatherDnyanoba and Samadhan Khindkar were implicated in a case of rape and offenceunder the Prevention of Atrocities Act by the informant.

The motive for abductinginformant was two-fold. One, that he was associated with Samadhan. Another, he was not withdrawing the offence against the applicant.3/10 4 BA/255/2026 10. The applicant was made accused in offence bearing CR No. 2 of2024 punishable under section 307, 323, 504, 34 of IPC, registered on03.01.2024 with Pimpalner Police Station. On 19.03.2024 informant submittedapplication to the Superintendent of Police stating that due to somemisunderstanding, a false offence was registered by him and in fact no suchincident occurred. Informant’s statement under section 164 was also recordedwhich was on the same line. Thereafter, report of B-Summary was submitted. Thefirst instance of abduction is alleged to have occurred in the present case on23.01.2024. There was no reason for him to lodge report on 13.03.2025 with themotive that applicant was insisting him to withdraw the offence already informanthad acted as per desire of applicant.

The motive alleged, appears to be doubtful. 11. Another surprising factor which is unexplained, is that the applicanthad a grudge that informant was associated with Samadhan Khindkar, who washis real brother. No material is collected to show rivalry between real brother andits gravity. Therefore, the motive shown in the matter is suspicious. Theinformant is suppressing true and the material facts. 12. Accused are alleged to have assaulted informant while travellingfrom Pune to Beed. After reaching at Dhekanmoh on 23.01.2024, he was broughtto the agricultural land of the applicant and further tortured. Thereafter, he wastaken to the dispensary by the applicant himself. The statement of Dr. Vishal Kale, who treated him shows that he was brought on 23.01.2024 by ambulance driverSanjay Khindkar and the wound on the head was sutured. The extract of O.P.D.also corroborates the treatment given by Dr. Kale. The statement of the driverSanjay reveals that applicant had been to Samarth Hospital.

There wasinteraction between the witness and the applicant who brought informant there.4/10 5 BA/255/2026 The injury certificate of informant shows that he was taken to hospital byapplicant. The injuries were reported to be simple. It is incomprehable as to whythe applicant would carry the injured informant for the treatment. There is totalabsence of mens rea for committing any serious offence. 13. Heavy reliance is placed by the prosecution on panchanama of thetranscript of the video to show involvement of the applicant. Applicant and co-accused are alleged to have tortured and assaulted the informant which wasvideographed. The transcript was of the incident of 23.01.2024. After the allegedtorture informant was taken to the Samarth Hospital and shown to Doctor VishalKale for the treatment by none else than the applicant. It reveals from thesequence of events that the intention of the complainant was to teach lesson tothe applicant or to terrorize him or threaten him.

The injuries are simple innature. I find that applicant cannot be said to be involved in a serious offence. He is behind bar since 13.03.2025 which is sufficient incarceration.14.I have gone through the antecedents reported against the applicant. Those are 6 (six) in number. Applicant could have committed serious offencewhen informant was in his custody. Out of the offences pitted against him, he wasacquitted from two offences. There is no information available for offence CRNo.118 of 2015 registered with Khaparkheda Police Station, Nagpur. Consideringthe criminal antecedents, stringent condition can be imposed on the applicant. Ifind that applicant is not required to be detained in jail any further considering thefactual matrix of the matter.CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGAL ASPECTS15.It is vehemently contended by Advocate Mr. Gaware that arrest of5/10 6 BA/255/2026 the applicant is illegal because he was not communicated grounds of arrest.

Aspecific plea to that effect was taken when earlier Bail Application was pressedinto service. In the present Application also, specific grounds have been taken. The same submissions were advanced when police custody was granted videorder dated 13.03.2025. The arrest was held to be legal by a reasoned orderwhich was not assailed before any other forum. Pertinently, the same ground waspressed into service in Bail Application No. 696 of 2025 which was rejected on30.04.2025. Being aggrieved, the applicant had approached Apex Court bypreferring in SLP (Criminal) 7575 of 2025. It was withdrawn on 14.07.2025. Itwas possible for the applicant to agitate the ground of illegal arrest but noendeavour was made. This creates doubt regarding the bona fides of theapplicant is raising plea. 16. My attention is adverted to the notice dated 13.03.2025 issuedunder section 50 which shows that the grounds of arrest are not spelt out but it isstated that the information regarding arrest was supplied to Samadhan BaburaoKhindkar and it bears the acknowledgment.

The arrest panchanama also showsthat the grounds were communicated and the information was given to Samadhan. The entry in the station diary shows that the grounds of arrest werecommunicated to the relatives. The grounds for the arrest were reiterated whileseeking police custody on the date of arrest itself. In such a situation, I find thatthere is sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the CrPC. The submissions in thisregard is devoid of any substance. 17. It is relevant to notice that applicant has failed to demonstrate theprejudice caused to him. Since his arrest, he is being represented by a lawyerwhich is evident from the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by JMFC granting police6/10 7 BA/255/2026 custody. He was having legal assistance and he was having knowledge of thegrounds as well as the relevant information of the arrest. The grievance of theapplicant cannot be countenanced at this stage of the proceeding.

18. Learned counsel Mr. Nitin Gaware has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal V. Union of India reported in (2024)7 SCC 576 in which the arrest was held to be illegal for non-compliance of section19 sub-section (1) of PMLA Act, 2002. He also referred to judgment of SupremeCourt in Vihaan Kumar V. State of Haryana and another reported in (2025) 5 SCC799 which was rendered on 07.02.2025 which also reiterates importance ofsection 19(1). Further reliance is placed on judgment of Directorate of Enforcement V. Subhash Sharma reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240 and Ahmed Mansoor and others Vs. The State; (Criminal Appeal No. 4505 of 2025), tobuttress that accused would be entitled to bail if the arrest is without following dueprocedure of law. 19. He further relied on judgment of Division Bench of the Bombay HighCourt in Mahesh Pandurang Naik V. State of Maharashtra; 2024 SCC OnLineBom 3918 as well as Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha V. State (NCT of Delhi); (2024) 8 SCC 254 to show that there is difference in informing reasons andgrounds of arrest.

He has fairly referred to judgment of Supreme Court in MihirRajesh Shah V. State of Maharashtra and another ; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356rendered on 06.11.2025.20.Respondents also referred to judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V. Sri Darshan Etc. (Criminal Appeal No. 3528 – 3534 of 2025 – dated14.08.2025); 2025 INSC 979, Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Karan SinghVs. State NCT of Delhi (W.P.(CRL)4203/2025) and learned Single Judge of7/10 8 BA/255/2026 Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2025 (Walmik Baburao KaradVs. The State of Maharashtra), to justify the arrest of the applicant. 21. It is relevant to refer to following extracts of Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra), to understand the purport of section 50(A) which reads asunder :-“42. The purpose of inserting Section 50-A CrPC, making it obligatory on theperson making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or personsnominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would be able to takeimmediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person aspermissible under the law.

The arrested person, because of his detention, may nothave immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominatedpersons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of thedetained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicatingthe grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentionedabove is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know thereasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him throughhis relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliestpossible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life asguaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement ofcommunicating 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 ornominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) ofthe Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may berendered illegal.” 22.A Division Bench of Delhi High Court considered the ratio of Mihir RajeshShah (supra) and laid down that it would operate prospectively in followingwords :-“19.

There is one more aspect of the case. The grievance about the allegedprocedural lapse has been raised very belatedly i.e. after more than one yearand nine months of the arrest and there is no whisper of any prejudice beingcaused to the petitioner, who was represented by counsel from day one. Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan : 2025 SCC OnLine SC1702 has held that while compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C. is mandatory, theconsistent judicial approach has been to adopt a ‘prejudice-oriented test’ whenexamining alleged procedural lapses and, further held that mere absence ofwritten grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results indemonstratable prejudice by denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defendthemselves.20. In conspectus of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that thechallenge to the arrest of the petitioner fails on three counts:8/10 9 BA/255/2026 i.

The law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), insofar as it mandatesuniform written communication of grounds of arrest, operates prospectively; ii. The petitioner’s clear and evident contemporaneous awareness of thesubstance and basis of his arrest from the inception; andiii. Absence of any demonstrated prejudice, coupled with the inordinate delayin raising the grievance.” 23. Relying on the same, learned Single Judge of this Court in CriminalAppeal No. 693 of 2025 (Walmik Karad V. The State) (supra) also adopted thesame view. 24. The respondents have relied upon judgment of State of KarnatakaV. Sri Darshan (supra) and following extracts as under :-“20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr. P.C. is mandatory, the consistent judicial approachhas been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedurallapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrestillegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity todefend.

20.1.7.In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflectthat the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legallyrepresented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing animmediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has beenplaced on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the allegedprocedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiteratedabove, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking thegravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima faciecase. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as thosedecisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approachadopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses infurnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custodyillegal or entitle the accused to bail.” 25.