VIJAYKUMAR GOPICHAND RAMCHANDANI Vs. AMAR SADHURAM MULCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by an order dtd. 24/11/2021 in Anticipatory Bail Application No 2803 of 2021, directed that the first respondent should be given 72 hours notice in the event that the State intends to arrest him on the registration of an FIR making out a cognizable offence. Consequently, the following order was passed:

(2.) The direction issued by the High Court to the effect that 72 hours notice should be given to the first respondent in the event that the State finds it necessary to arrest him in connection with any complaint pertaining to a cognizable offence at the behest of the Joint Registrar (Audit) is manifestly incorrect in law. (See in this context, Union of India v Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others, (2008) 13 SCC 305). Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court.

(3.) The direction to the effect that 72 hours advance notice should be given to the first respondent before effecting an arrest, in the event of a complaint being registered in respect of a cognizable offence, is accordingly vacated and set aside.