Bombay High Court
Sanjay Pralhad Fulkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 May, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: S. V. Kotwal, S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:21305-DB
LSP 1 3 wp 2684.25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Writ Petition No.2684 of 2025
Sanjay Pralhad Fulkar ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents.
Mr. Vipul D. Patil a/w. Mr. Pandurang Sonune for the Petitioner.
Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL
Digitally
signed by & S.M. MODAK, JJ.
LATA
LATA SUNIL
SUNIL PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date: DATE : 6th May 2025.
2025.05.09
11:46:46
+0530
JUDGMENT (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.):
This is a petition for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas
corpus and for setting aside the arrest memo in respect of the present
Petitioner and the consequent relief is for his release on bail.
2. The main contention raised by the Petitioner in this petition is
that, he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24
hours from his arrest and, therefore, his arrest and subsequent
remands are illegal. He is seeking relief in the nature of writ of
LSP 2 3 wp 2684.25.doc
habeas corpus in these circumstances.
3. The Petitioner is arrested in connection with C.R.
No.201/2025 registered at, Nerul Police Station under Sections 8
(c),20(b)(ii),29,21(A),23(A),27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and under
Sections 338, 336(3),340(2),255, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 (for short 'BNS').
4. The contentious issue is whether the Petitioner was arrested at
5.00 a.m. on 27th April 2025 or was arrested at 9.00 p.m. on 27 th
April 2025. He was granted remand by the learned Magistrate at
around 11.00 a.m. on 28th April 2025. It is mentioned in the petition
that the Petitioner was at home at around 5.00 a.m. on 27 th April
2025. About 6 police officers came to his residence and according to
the Petitioner he was apprehended at around 5.22 a.m. on 27 th April
2025. He was taken to Anti Narcotic Cell, Crime Branch, Navi
Mumbai for interrogation. At about 12..00 a.m. in the midnight
between 27th April 2025 and 28th April 2025 he was taken to the
learned Magistrate who was assigned the job of holiday Magistrate
LSP 3 3 wp 2684.25.doc
but by the time the police reached the JMFC Court, Belapur, it was
12.08 a.m. and the learned Magistrate was not available. Thereafter,
he was taken to concerned police station where he was detained and
thereafter he was produced before the JMFC Belapur on 28 th April
2025. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner this is gross
violation of Article 22 as he was not produced before the nearest
Magistrate within 24 hours. The learned Magistrate did not entertain
the prayer for remand on 27th April 2025. The Petitioner's custody,
therefore, becomes illegal.
5. In support of his case the learned Counsel relied on the
observations of a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of
Telangana in the case of Smt. T. Ramadevi v/s. The State of
Telangana1 and the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in the
case of Ashak Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique and another vs. The
Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay and another 2 to contend
that since the Petitioner was put under restraint at 5.00 a.m. on 27 th
April 2025, that is the time which should be treated as the time of
arrest. He contended that the Single Judge bench of this Court has held
2 1990 SCC OnLine Bom 3
LSP 4 3 wp 2684.25.doc
that arrest is the restraint on a man's personal liberty by the power or
colour of lawful authority. Arrest means restraint on or deprivation
of one's personal liberty.
6. On the other hand, learned APP relied on the affidavit filed by
the Senior Police Inspector attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Crime
Branch, Navi Mumbai to present the facts before the Court. Her
main contention is that the Petitioner was called for enquiry on 27 th
April 2025 at around 6.00 a.m. and only after being satisfied about
his involvement, he was put under arrest at 9.00 p.m. on 27 th April
2025. He was produced before the Magistrate and was granted
remand within 24 hours from that time and, therefore, the custody is
not illegal.
7. We have considered these submissions. The facts mentioned
in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Senior Police Inspector Shri
Nigade are as follows. It is necessary to give a brief background of
the entire case-
. The Anti Narcotics Cell officers received a confidential
information on 14th April 2025. Pursuant to that information they
LSP 5 3 wp 2684.25.doc
conducted raid on the terrace of a building in Sector 15, Nerul, Navi
Mumbai. Two accused namely Ashish Gaware and Ahmed Olgi
were apprehended. One Akash Maurya was successful in absconding
from the scene. The body search of the two accused was carried out,
the raiding party also seized two sets of ganja (intermediate quantity)
from the terrace. One set of ganja was having weight of 1 kg and 15
grams and second set of ganja was of "hydroponic weed" (imported)
having weight of 17.19 grams. The FSL team confirmed the presence
of this narcotic drug. After following the prescribed procedure the
two arrested accused were taken to Nerul police station and the
offence vide C.R. No.201/2025 was registered.
8. During investigation it was revealed that both of these arrested
accused used to sell the contraband. They used to purchase it from
one Sahil Shabbir Lambe and one Sujeet Raghunath Bangra.
Therefore, house search of Sahil Lambe was conducted and further
quantity of of ganja was seized from his house. The investigation
revealed that Sujeet Bangra was the mastermind for providing the
contraband substance to various persons. Therefore, Sahil Lambe
and Sujeet Bangra were also arrested. Sujeet disclosed that he
LSP 6 3 wp 2684.25.doc
imported the said hydroponic ganja from Thailand and America and
one Mr. Kamal Jaikisan Chandwani used to assist them for making
custom clearance. Therefore, house search of Kamal Chandwani was
conducted on 21st April 2025. Some cash was seized. From his car
85.29 grams of hydroponic ganja was found. Kamal Chandwani was
arrested on 21st April 2025 from his residence.
9. The next stage of investigation concerns the present Petitioner.
The interrogation of Chandwani revealed that in order to remove his
name and those of his associates Sujeet Bangra and Jai Koli (the
absconding accused) he met Mr. Sachin Bhalerao - Police Hawaldar
attached to Kharghar Police Station, Navi Mumbai. Sachin Bhalerao
in turn made a phone call to the present Petitioner who was a Police
Naik Buckle No.2643 attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Navi
Mumbai. The Petitioner allegedly assured Bhalerao that he would
ensure that Kamal Chandwani, Sujeet Bangera and Jai Koli's names
would not be impleaded as accused. The accused agreed to pay an
amount of Rs.10 lacs to the Petitioner. On 15 th April 2025 they
handed over cash of Rs. 10 lacs to Sachin Bhalerao and Bhalerao
LSP 7 3 wp 2684.25.doc
went to the house of Petitioner at Khandeshwar and handed over
Rs.10 lacs to him. This was the information received by the
investigating officer. The telephone locations of all the accused
persons were verified. Sachin Bhalerao was arrested on 27 th April
2025 at 9.15 a.m. The details of phone calls from his mobile phone
revealed that there was reference to demand of money from Kamal
Chandwani and also a reference to the Petitioner's name.
10. The affidavit further mentions that the police went to the
residence of the Petitioner at Khanda Colony and asked him to
come with them for enquiry to the office of Anti Narcotic Cell, Navi
Mumbai and brought him to office at 6.00 a.m. on 27 th April 2025.
After making enquiry with him, his involvement was revealed and,
therefore, he was arrested on 27th April 2025 at 9.00 p.m. The
affidavit contains the station diary of Anti Narcotic Cell office dated
27th April 2025. All the procedure required under the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita was followed. The Petitioner's wife was informed. Shri
Sandeep Nigade took the Petitioner to the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Belapur, Navi Mumbai on 28 th April 2025 at 12.10 a.m.
for the first remand within 24 hours from the arrest of the Petitioner
LSP 8 3 wp 2684.25.doc
with the remand report and requested for producing the accused for
remand. Upon this the learned JMFC through the Court's staff
informed Shri Nigade that the learned Magistrate was on leave and
he would be available in the morning at 11.00 a.m. and instructed
him to produce the Petitioner at 11.00 a.m. After that Nigade
returned back to Anti Narcotic Cell, Belapur and made a station
diary entry. The Petitioner was produced before the learned JMFC,
Belapur on 28th April 2025 at 11.00 a.m..
11. According to the affidavit he was produced within 24 hours
from 27th April 2025 at 9.00 p.m. The Learned Magistrate granted
police custody till 1st May 2025. The learned Magistrate also
observed that there was no illegal detention as far as the Petitioner is
concerned. The Petitioner's contention in that behalf was rejected.
. These are the facts mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply.
12. In this background we have considered the submissions of
both the learned Counsel. The station diary entries of Anti Narcotic
Cell, Navi Mumbai mention that at 6.00 a.m. the Petitioner was
brought to that office. Significantly, the Petitioner was working with
LSP 9 3 wp 2684.25.doc
the same office. The station diary entries after that mention that at
about 8.20 a.m. accused Kamal Chandwani was brought to the
office. At 9.05 a.m. Sachin Bhalerao was brought to the office from
Nashik. At 9.15 a.m. on 27th April 2025 Sachin Bhalerao was put
under arrest. Further station diary entries on that day mention the
investigation carried out in connection with this offence. Particularly,
in respect of accused Sachin Bhalerao's involvement, his house was
searched. He was taken for remand. All this took some time and
finally at 9.00 p.m. the present Petitioner was arrested. The entry at
9.00 p.m. mentions that since the Petitioner's involvement in the
crime was revealed, he was arrested after following the due
procedure. Thus, the entries show that though the Petitioner was
brought to the Anti Narcotic Cell office at around 6.00 a.m. on 27 th
April 2025, he was not immediately put under arrest. Significantly,
he was working with the same office, therefore, the police officers
were right in their approach in first satisfying themselves about the
involvement of the Petitioner before arresting him. The station diary
entries show that first the accused Bhalerao was put under arrest. He
was thoroughly interrogated, his house was searched, he was
LSP 10 3 wp 2684.25.doc
produced for remand and only after all this investigation was carried
out, the police officers were convinced about the Petitioner's
involvement in the crime and then he was arrested at 9.00 p.m. on
27th April 2025.
13. Thus, we do not see any fault with the procedure. It cannot
be said that since the Petitioner was taken to the Anti Narcotic Cell
office at 6.00 a.m. that means he was arrested then and there. It is
important to note that there is a special provision under Section 67
of the NDPS Act which reads thus:
"67. Power to call for information, etc. - Any officer
referred to in section 42 who is authorised in this behalf
by the Central Government or a State Government may,
during the course of any enquiry in connection with the
contravention of any provision of this Act, -
(a) call for information from any person for the purpose
of satisfying himself whether there has been any
contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or
other made thereunder;
(b) require any person to produce or deliver any
document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;
(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case."
LSP 11 3 wp 2684.25.doc
Thus, the investigating officers were well within their right to
examine any person which in this case would be the present
Petitioner who was acquainted with the facts and circumstances of
the case. They were also well within their rights to call for
information from any person including the Petitioner in this case for
the purpose of satisfying themselves that there has been
contravention of provisions of NDPS Act. Thus, the enquiry made
by the Anti Narcotic Cell officers throughout the day as is reflected
in the station diary entry of 27th April 2025 was in the nature of this
enquiry, therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was under
arrest right from 5.00 a.m. on 27th April 2025.
14. The reliance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the
aforesaid two judgments, therefore, does not assist his arguments
regarding the illegal detention of the Petitioner as we have observed
that the Petitioner was rightly put under arrest at 9.00 p.m. on 27 th
April 2025 only after being satisfied about his involvement in the
crime. From that time he was produced before the Magistrate within
24 hours and first remand was granted. Everything was done in
LSP 12 3 wp 2684.25.doc
accordance with law and procedure. There is no violation of any
statutory or constitutional provisions. In this view of the matter, we
do not find that any relief can be granted in this petition.
15. The Writ Petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
16. All these observations are made for consideration of illegality
of detention of the Petitioner. The Petitioner would be at liberty to
adopt appropriate proceedings for his release on bail on merits in
accordance with law.
(S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL,J.)
