Bombay High Court
Ajit Kisan More vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE 2025:BHC-AS:34859-DB
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2025.08.13
11:19:47 +0530
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3119 OF 2025
Mr.Ajit Kisan More, )
Age 24 years. Occ. Farmer, )
Residing at Nimbut Chapri )
Tal. Baramati, Dist. Pune, )
Currently Lodged at Yerwada )
Central Prison at Pune/ ) ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra )
Through Inspector of Police )
of Wadgaon Nimbalkar Police Station )
Dist. ) ... Respondent
...
Mr.Niranjan Mundargi with Ms.Keral Mehta, Mr.Ranjeet M. Pawar and
Mr.Bhargav S. Pataskar for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, Addl. PP for the Respondent -State.
Mr.Chaitanya Pendse with Mr.Shailesh Chavan and Mr. Sachin Pawar for
the Original Complainant/Intervenor.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
DATE : 11TH August, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
1/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (A), (B) and (C), as
under :-
“A) That after examining the facts, circumstance,
material in the chargesheet and remand orders passed
by the Ld. JMFC at Baramati Dist. Pune, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to issue writ of habeas corpus or
any other appropriate writ or direction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 ( 528 of BNSS), thereby
declaring the arrest of the Petitioner illegal in Crime
No. 283 of 2024, registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar
Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences punishable
under section 307, 143, 147, 352, 504, 506, 201 of
Indian Penal Code r/w. Section 3,25,29 of Arms Act.
B) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the
arrest of the Petitioner illegal and gross violation of the
fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under
21 and 22 in relation to F.I.R. no. 283 of 2024,
registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station,
Dist. Pune and thereby quash and set aside the remand
orders dated 01.07.2024 and 04.07.2024 passed by the
Ld. JMFC at Baramati Dist. Pune alongwith order
below Exhibit 38 dated 17.05.2025 passed by LD
Session Court at Baramati Dist. Pune in Session Case
no. 190 of 2024.
C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue
appropriate direction to release the Petitioner forthwith
by declaring the arrest illegal in FIR No. 283 of 2024
registered with Wadgaon- Nimbalkar Police Station,
Dist. Pune”.
3. We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned
Advocates for the Petitioner, the learned Addl. PP and the learned
2/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
Advocates for the Original Complainant/ Intervenor. We have gone through
the voluminous record available before us.
4. The issue raised by the Petitioner is that the reasons for his
arrest were not communicated to him in writing, when he was arrested on 1st
July, 2024.
5. The deceased Ranjit Eknath Nimbalkar, had two bulls, named
Sarja and Sundar, which were kept in the custody of one Vitthal Chavan,
who was employed as the deceased’s driver. Sarja originally belonged to
Accused No.1 and was purchased by the deceased for Rs. 61,00,000/-, a
year ago. Thus, the deceased owned a pair of bulls, Sarja and Sundar. These
strong bulls were used for bullock racing. The employer (Accused No.1) of
the Petitioner was desirous of purchasing Sundar, who was valued at Rs.
37,00,000/-. Accused No.1 paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money and the
balance of Rs. 32,00,000/- were agreed to be paid on 27th June, 2024.
6. The dispute arose in a meeting held on 27 th June, 2024 and it is
alleged that the deceased did not part with the bull Sundar. The police
contend that Accused No.1 got infuriated, pulled out his pistol and shot the
deceased in the head. Since the present Petitioner was said to be a witness,
3/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
he was being interrogated. However, during the investigation, it was
revealed that Accused No.3 had directed the Petitioner to wash away the
blood stains and clean up the crime scene. Hence, during interrogation,
the Petitioner was arrested on 1st July, 2024 at 05:04 hours (early morning),
on the charge of attempting to destroy evidence,.
7. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 28 th June,
2024. The Petitioner was initially being interrogated as a witness, and his
statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the
Cr.PC) was recorded. However, on 1st July, 2024, during the course of the
interrogation, the police authorities arrested him and produced him before
the learned Magistrate on the same day.
8. The grievance of the present Petitioner stems from the arrest
that was carried out. He has no grievance regarding his production before
the learned Magistrate within 24 hours. His only grievance is that he was
not intimated of the reasons for his arrest, in writing.
9. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner on
the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23rd May, 2025 in
4/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
Kasireddy Upender Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Others1.
Relevant paragraph nos. 17 and 18, are reproduced here under :-
17. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh while fully concurring with
the views expressed by Justice Abhay S. Oka added a few
lines of his own as under:
“2. The issue on the requirement of communication
of grounds of arrest to the person arrested, as
mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India, which has also been incorporated in the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under
Section 19 thereof has been succinctly reiterated in
this judgment. The constitutional mandate of
informing the grounds of arrest to the person
arrested in writing has been explained in the case
of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as to be meaningful to
serve the intended purpose which has been
reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said
constitutional mandate has been incorporated in
the statute under Section 50 of the CrPC (Section
47 of BNSS). It may also be noted that the aforesaid
provision of requirement for communicating the
grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also required
to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such
other persons of the accused as may be disclosed
or nominated by the arrested person for the
purpose of giving such information as provided
under Section 50A of the CrPC. As may be noted,
this is in the addition of the requirement as
provided under Section 50(1) of the CrPC.
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228 5/17 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:20:49 ::: Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the
CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making
arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends,
relatives or persons nominated by the arrested
person, is to ensure that they would able to take
immediate and prompt actions to secure the release
of the arrested person as permissible under the law.
The arrested person, because of his detention, may
not have immediate and easy access to the legal
process for securing his release, which would
otherwise be available to the friends. relatives and
such nominated persons by way of engaging
lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the
detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore,
the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest
to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as
mentioned above is not merely a formality but to
enable the detained person to know the reasons for
his arrest but also to provide the necessary
opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or
nominated persons to secure his release at the
earliest possible opportunity for actualising the
fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the
requirement of communicating 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 or nominated by the
arrested person, so as to make the mandate of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and
effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered
illegal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
18. Thus, the following principles of law could be
said to have been laid down, rather very well
explained, in Vihaan Kumar (supra):
a) The requirement of informing the person arrested
of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a
mandatory constitutional condition.
b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty
under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an
important fundamental right is curtailed, it is
necessary that the person concerned must
understand on what grounds he has been arrested.
c) The mode of conveying the information of the
grounds of arrest must be meaningful so as to serve
the true object underlying Article 22(1).
d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon
as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a
violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee
guaranteed under Article 22(1).
e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of
informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be
after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated.
Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person
arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.
f) If the police want to prove communication of the
grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is
necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in
the diary entry or any other document. The grounds
of arrest must exist before the same are informed.
g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated, the
burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is
on the police authorities.
7/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided
to the arrestee but also to his family members and
relatives so that necessary arrangements are made
to secure the release of the person arrested at the
earliest possible opportunity so as to make the
mandate of Article 22(1) meaningful and effective,
failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.”
10. The learned Addl.PP has entered an affidavit-in-reply through
Assistant Police Inspector (API), Mr.Sachin Kale, Wadgaon Nimbalkar
Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, dated 6th August, 2025, along with several
annexures. He points out from the case diary that it was specifically
mentioned on internal page no. 12, in the second paragraph, which is
reproduced as under:
“तसेच सदर गुन्हयातील अनोळखी आरोपी यांना निनष्पन्न करून
४) सचिचन वसंत मोटकट्टे वय २४ वर्षे’ , राह- गौतम काकडे
यांचे कामगार खोलीत निंनबुत छप्री, ता. बारामती जि2.पुणे मुळ
रा- बोर2ाईनगर पलुस ता. पलुस जि2. सांगली. ५) अजि2त
निकसन मोरे वय २४ वर्षे’, राह- गौतम काकडे यांचे कामगार
खोलीत निंनबुत छप्री. ता. बारामती जि2.पुणे मुळ रा- निंनबुत
लक्ष्मीनगर ता. बारामती जि2.पुणे. निंनबुत भागात शोध घेवुन
ताब्यात घेण्यात आले असुन त्यांची वैद्यकीय तपासणी
उपजि2ल्हा रूग्णालय बारामती येथे करून घेवुन अटक करतेवेळी
गुन्हा रजि2. नंबर व कोणत्या गुन्हयात अटक करत आहे . व
अटक करण्याची कारणे सम2ावुन सांगुन अटकेबाबत मा. सवEच्च
न्यायालय यांचे मागG दशG क तत्वांचे व सुचनांचे तसेच अटी व
शथHचे तंतोतंत पालन करण्यात आले असुन दोन पंचासमक्ष
अटक फॉमG भरण्यात आला असुन अटक फॉमG मध्ये आरोपीस
अटक करतेवेळी आरोपी क्र ४ यांचे नातेवाईक पत्नी निनकीता8/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025सचिचन मोटकट्टे (पत्नी) राह- सदर यांना अटकेबाबत
कळनिवण्यात आले असुन आरोपी क्र ५ यांचे नातेवाईक अलका
निकसन मोरे (आई) व निकसन पांडुरंग मोरे यांना अटकेबाबत
कळनिवण्यात आले आहे. त्याबाबत अटक रजि2स्टरी नोंद घेवुन
स्टेशन डायरी करण्यात आली आहे. तसेच आरोपीस
सी.आर.पी.सी ४७,४८,५०अ प्रमाणे तोंडी व लेखी सुचनापत्र
अदा करण्यात आले असून अटक फॉमG मधील कॉलम नं. ८
मध्ये अटकेची कारणे व अटकेचे अचिधकार सम2ावुन
सांगीतल्याने व सम2ल्याने अटक फॉमG वर दोन पंचसमक्ष
आरोपीने सहया केल्या आहेत. आरोपी क्र ४ व ५ यांचे
अटकेबाबतचे आधारभुत मुद्ये (ग्राउन्ड ऑफ अरेस्ट) १)
आपणानिवरूध्द गंभीर स्वरूपाचा गु. रजि2. नं. २८३
/२०२४,भा.दं.निव.क.३०७,३०२,१४३,१४७,१४९,३५२,
५०४,५०६,२०१ आमG अॅ^क्ट ३.२५ दाखल असुन सदर
गुन्हा केल्याचे तपासात निनष्पन झाले आहे. २) सदरचा गुन्हा
घडतेवेळी आपणास साक्षीदार व निफयाGदी यांनी प्रत्यक्ष पाहीले
आहे. व तपासमध्ये निनष्पन्न झाले आहे. ४) आपण सदरचा गुन्हा
केल्याचे प्रथमदशG नी तपासात आरोपी क्र १ यांचे सांगणेवरून
निफयाGदी साक्षीदार व मयत रणजि2त निंनबाळकर यांस मारण्यास
येवुन गुन्हा केल्याचे निनष्पन्न होत असल्याने आपणस अटक
करण्यात येत आहे”
11. He, therefore, submits on instructions that the Petitioner was
made aware of the reasons for his arrest. He has then referred to the
remand application dated 1st July 2024, placed before the concerned Court
while seeking remand of all the Accused persons. He also points out from
the reply tendered by the learned APP before the Trial Court in Sessions
Case No. 190 of 2024, that the department had taken a firm stand that there
was total compliance of Section 50 of the Cr.PC.
9/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
12. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
points out that, in the first remand application dated 1st July, 2024, insofar
as the Petitioner is concerned, the reasons for remand have not been
specified against the present Petitioner. There is no whisper as to why the
authorities are seeking the remand of the present Petitioner. It is recorded in
the narration that since Accused No.3 Shahaji Kakade had asked the
Petitioner to wash away the bloodstains and destroy evidence, Section 201
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), was invoked, and a noting was made
in the station diary.
13. He then points out a startling aspect of the matter. A Panch,
namely, Dilip Shankar Hirave, filed an affidavit before the Trial Court on 9 th
May, 2025. The significant portion is reproduced, as under :
“आमचे समक्ष पोलिलसांनी इसम नामे अजि2त निकसन मोरे यांना
त्यांस कोणत्या गुन्ह्यामध्ये कोणत्या कारणासाठी अटक
करण्यात येत आहे याची इत्यंभूत मानिहती थोडी सम2ावून
सांनिगतली. ….. अटकेची करणे कागदावर लिलखीत स्वरूपात
नमूद करून त्यांचे हातात देण्यात आला होती व त्यांना अटक
केलेबाबत निकसन पांडुरंग मोरे यांना देखील आमचे समक्ष
कळनिवणेत आले होते. सदर वेळी वडगांव निंनबाळकर पोलीस
स्टेशन येथे ह2ारोंच्या संख्येने 2माव 2मलेला होता. अशा
परिरस्थिस्थतीही पोलीस निनरीक्षक सचिचन काळे यांनी इसम नामे
अजि2त निकसन मोरे यांस अटकेची कारणे माझे समोर लिलहून
निदली होती. सदर अटकेची कारणे अजि2त निकसन मोरे यास
10/17::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025लेखी तसेच तोंडी स्वरूपात निदल्यामुळे त्याचा अटकेचा फॉमG
तयार करण्यात आला. सदर अटक फॉमG मधील कॉलम नं. ८
मध्ये अटकेची करणे व कायदेशीर अचिधकार पोलिलसांनी
सम2ावून सांनिगतले बाबतचा उल्लेख करून सदर करणे व
कायदेशीर अचिधकार सम2ले बाबतची पुष्टी झालेनंतर सदर
आरोपी इसमाने अटक फॉमG च्या शेवटच्या पानावर त्याचे
फोटोशे2ारी आमचे समक्ष सही केलेली आहे.”
14. In the backdrop of the above submissions, we have analyzed
the entire documents placed before us in this proceeding. We have perused
the Arrest / Court Surrender Form at page no. 133, dated 1 st July, 2024,
more specifically Clause No. 8, where in the reasons for arresting a person
are always required to be mentioned along with the date, time and place,
with a narration of the reasons. The entire clause in the said form is left
blank in this case. Not a single word has been typed in the Arrest Form to
indicate that the Petitioner was made aware of the grounds for his arrest.
15. The learned Addl.PP is under instructions to canvass that the
police authorities do not possess any acknowledgment of having served the
written reasons for the arrest, to the Petitioner. When called upon, he
submits, on instructions, that the police authorities do not have any such
paper or document which would indicate that the reasons were written down
in black and white and which could be said to have being served upon the
Petitioner.
11/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025 16. Apparently, the police are attempting to mislead us. The
learned Addl.PP has then canvassed on instructions that, when it was
mentioned in the remand application dated 1st July, 2024 that the present
Petitioner was arrested because he washed away the bloodstains on the
directions of Shahaji Kakade, this would amount to conveying the reasons
to the Petitioner. Shahaji Kakade is part of the close blood lineage of the
family of Accused No.1. Accused No. 3 is a member of the same family,
which employed the Petitioner.
17. In the backdrop of the contention put forth by the Petitioner, we
are referring to the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan
Kumar versus State of Haryana & Anr.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
concluded that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in
writing is not only significant to the arrested person, but also to the friends,
relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the
Constitution meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be
rendered illegal.
1 (2025) 5 SCC 799 12/17 ::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2025 21:20:49 ::: Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
18. Sections 50 and 50A of the Cr.PC, read as under :
“Section 50. Person arrested to be informed of
grounds of arrest and of right to bail.
(1) Every police officer or other person arresting
any person without warrant shall forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence
for which he is arrested or other grounds for such
arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant
any person other than a person accused of a non-
bailable offence, he shall inform the person
arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail
and that he may arrange for sureties on his
behalf.”
“Section 50A. Obligation of person making arrest
to inform about the arrest, etc., to a nominated
person. — (1) Every police officer or other person
making any arrest under this Code shall forthwith
give the information regarding such arrest and
place where the arrested person is being held to
any of his friends, relatives or such other persons
as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested
person for the purpose of giving such information.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested
person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon
as he is brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been
informed of the arrest of such person shall be
made in a book to be kept in the police station in
such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by
the State Government.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before
whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy13/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025himself that the requirements of sub-section (2)
and sub-section (3) have been complied with in
respect of such arrested person.”
19. It is thus, crystallized in Vihaan Kumar (supra), that the
purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue is not merely
a formality, but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his
arrest.
20. In Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has concluded in paragraph No. 18 (e) that on the failure to comply
with the requirement of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as may be,
after the arrest, the arrest would stand vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be
vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.
21. From the records, two things become absolutely clear. Firstly,
that the Petitioner was not communicated the reasons of arrest in writing
and, secondly, the Panch, Dilip Shankar Hirave, has executed a false
affidavit, the marked portion of which is reproduced herein above,
indicating a false statement that the present Petitioner was served with a
written sheet containing the reasons for his arrest.
14/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
22. Mr.Sachin Kale, API, has addressed the learned Magistrate that
the principles culled out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (judgment not cited
or referred to in his communication), have been scrupulously followed
while arresting the Petitioner.
23. The Panch, Dilip Shankar Hirave, has the courage to say on
oath that the reasons for arrest were written on a sheet of paper in his
presence and that it was served on the Petitioner. In the station diary, a
reproduced portion of which is set forth herein above, it is recorded that the
reasons for arrest were served on the Petitioner in writing. What shocks our
conscience is that there is no such sheet of paper on which such reasons
were written down or were served upon the Petitioner. The police
authorities neither have any record of such communication nor do they
possess any acknowledgment from the Petitioner. A completely false
statement is being made, with impunity.
24. This conduct of the police authorities is exposed in paragraph
13 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 6th August 2025, affirmed by the same
Mr.Sachin Kale, API stating that “I say that during the course of
investigation, I have arrested the Petitioner on 01.07.2024 at 05.04 hrs. and
15/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
personally informed him grounds of his arrest, and the said fact mentioned
in Station Diary dated 01.07.2024 at 05.04 hrs. maintained at Wadgaon
Nimbalkar Police Station, Pune Rural, Dist: Pune and accordingly, Case
Diary to that effect was made on 01.07.2024 vide Case Diary No. 4″.
25. The police authorities are not in a position to show us any such
document which would substantiate their stand, notwithstanding paragraph
No. 13 of the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, adverted to herein
above. It is a clear case that the reasons for arrest were not conveyed to the
Petitioner in writing.
26. The learned Advocate representing the Informant (wife of the
deceased) who is assisting the learned Addl.PP., has opposed this Petition
and submits that the issue as to whether the reasons for arresting a person
are to be communicated orally or in writing, is a matter before the Full
Bench of this Court. He further submits that the issue originating from an
order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, concluding that the reasons for
arrest need not be always intimated in writing to the person being arrested,
is a subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah
V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 which is now reserved for judgment.
1 SLP (Cri) No. 17132 of 2023
16/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
Trupti 46-WP-3119-2025
27. Notwithstanding the above submissions, there is no dispute that
the views taken in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Kasireddy Upender Reddy
(supra), hold the field, as on date.
28. As such, this Writ Petition is allowed. The arrest of the
Petitioner dated 1st July, 2024 is declared illegal. We direct the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune, to issue
appropriate orders in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2024, for releasing the
Petitioner from jail, if not required to be detained in any other case.
29. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
30. The parties shall act upon a print-out copy of this order
obtained from the official website of the Bombay High Court.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
17/17
::: Uploaded on – 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 13/08/2025 21:20:49 :::
[ad_1]
Source link