9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation, pursuant to an order of remand passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. Second, in any case, the High Court should have refrained from making scathing observations against the concerned police officials and the said remarks should be expunged. 4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 24th January, 2018, a secret information was received by the local police that one Mukesh Pandian, who is a private detective, was obtaining call detail records of different people and was selling them in return for hefty amount of money. The police caused the arrest of Mukesh Pandian and sought call details of Vodafone Company. First Information Report, bearing No. I-31/18 was registered against Mukesh Pandian for offences punishable Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66, 72 and 72(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. During the investigation, additional offences Under Section 26 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 and Sections 201, 171, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code were added. Later on, police arrested one Prasant Palekar and found various mobile chats in his mobile including with Rizwan Alam Siddique (hus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detention in accordance with procedure established by law. Further relief claimed was to set her husband Rizwan Alam Siddique at liberty. The writ petition was moved on 20th March, 2018 when the Court in its order recorded as follows: 4. Mr. Merchant would submit that once this notice is issued, then, in terms of Sub-section (1), the police officer was satisfied that the arrest of the Petitioner's husband is not required and that the matter falls under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 41. He, therefore, was pleased to issue a notice directing the Petitioner's husband to appear before him at such place as is specified in the notice. 5. The factual argument is that this notice is dated 16th March 2018 and it informs the husband of the Petitioner to appear before the officer signing this notice on 17th March 2018. Mr. Merchant would submit that Sub-Section 2 of Section 41-A contemplates issuance of such notice but such phrase would have to be construed as "service or execution of notice", else Sub-Section 1 would be rendered otiose. Therefore, until the person fails to comply with the terms of notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, all the consequences in law shall follow. 9. This opportunity is granted to Mr. Yagnik only because the document at pages 41 and 42 denotes that not only the Petitioner's husband was present at his office but he and his staff handed over the articles and details of his e-mail identity, mobile and related information. The panchanama records that preparation of the same had commenced at 20.10 hours and ended at 22.10 hours on 16th March 2018. 10. Stand over to 21st March 2018 at 11.00 a.m. 6. Again, the matter was listed on 21st March, 2018 when the Division Bench of the High Court perused the record produced by the Public Prosecutor, including the entry in the police diary, the remand report and other documents. It held that the said record did not show necessary compliance of the mandate of law before the arrest of Rizwan Alam Siddique. After recording that finding, it went on to observe that such arrest infringes the valuable right guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, acceded to the request of the Respondent to set Rizwan Alam Siddique at liberty forthwith. At the same time, the High Court went on to make scathing observations against the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner's husband for having violated the law. 7. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellants have filed the present appeal on two counts, as already indicated in paragraph 3 above. The Respondent, on the other hand, has supported the decision of the High Court and submits that the appeal is devoid of merit. It is also brought to our notice that Rizwan Alam Siddique has already been released after the impugned judgment. In response to this submission, counsel for the Appellants would submit that the Appellants are more concerned about the scathing observations made by the High Court against the police officials and would be more than content if liberty is granted to the police to proceed against the said Rizwan Alam Siddique in accordance with law. 8. We have heard Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 9. The question as to whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation, this issue has been consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. For, he could not have voluntarily released the Accused who was in police custody pursuant to a judicial order in force. The High Court ought not to have made scathing observations even against the Investigating Officer without giving him opportunity to offer his explanation on affidavit. 11. Suffice it to observe that since no writ of habeas corpus could be issued in the fact situation of the present case, the High Court should have been loath to enter upon the merits of the arrest in absence of any challenge to the judicial order passed by the Magistrate granting police custody till 23rd March, 2018 and more particularly for reasons mentioned in that order of the Magistrate. In a somewhat similar situation, this Court in State represented by Inspector of Police and Ors. v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate (2004) 5 SCC 729 deprecated passing of disparaging and strong remarks by the High Court against the Investigating Officer and about the investigation done by them. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in expunging the observations made in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the impugned judgment against the concerned police officials in the facts of the present case. 12. As aforesaid, even though th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
