STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MITESH MANILAL LODHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for rival parties. Shri. S. V. Sirpurkar waives service of notice on behalf of respondent.

(2.) This application is directed against two orders namely order dated 29.8.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur, and the order dated 11.9.2009 in Criminal Revision Application No. 111 of 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in the matter of rejection of prayer for grant of police custody remand.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed the application and argued that the statement from the police case diary now shown to this Court was never placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge and that is why the courts below could not be blamed for the observations made by them in respect of the orders. The counsel then argued that the respondent made a statement before Police Officer during interrogation and even before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that he did not possess any stolen property nor did he pay any price thereof to any of the accused persons and that should be the end of the matter and consequently police custody remand was rightly refused by the trial Court. The counsel then argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate having rejected the request for police custody remand, granted bail and after lapse of period of 15 days in no case the police custody remand can be requested for muchless granted. In support of his submissions, he relied on