BHAIRARAM SARASWAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the prayer clause. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day and amended copy be served on the office of the Public Prosecutor/Public Prosecutor.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner has impugned his illegal arrest by the police; non-compliance of Sec. 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.PC') and several other grounds have been raised in the aforesaid petition.

(3.) The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not served with the mandatory Sec. 41A notice as required considering the offence was one under Sec. 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with the L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, vide C.R. No.232 of 2024. According to the petitioner, the said FIR was registered on 11/3/2024. Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. It is the petititioner's case that on 19/3/2024, two to three persons, who were later identified to be police officers including respondent No.2 approached the petitioner in his shop at Ahmedabad in plain clothes and picked-up the petitioner. Learned counsel relied on the CCTV footage screen shots annexed to the petition, which are at Exhibit - "D" (colly) of the petition. It is submitted that the said persons who were police detained the petitioner from his place of work and did not serve him a notice under Sec. 41A Cr.PC. This, according to the petitioner was in clear violation of the mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v/s Central Bureau of Investigation and Another,(2022) 10 SCC 51. and Arnesh Kumar v/s State of Bihar and Another,(2014) 8 SCC 273. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was picked-up and brought to Mumbai, without seeking any transit remand, as required under Sec. 57 Cr.PC. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Indoria v/s State of Karnataka and Others. Etc.,[SLP (Crl) Nos.11423-11426 of 2023 decided on 20/11/2023] in particular, para 34 of the said judgment.