Bombay High Court
Ashok Sahadev Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 October, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:43983-DB
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4750 OF 2025
Ashok Sahadev Patil .... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. A.N. Mishra i/b. SAVJ Law Solutions for the Petitioner.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr. Ghadage, PSI, Meghawadi Police Station, Mumbai, present.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
PER (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-
1) This is a Petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in
connection with the detention of the Petitioner in C.R.No.449/2022
registered at Meghwadi Police Station, Mumbai on 26/07/2022 under
Section 376 of IPC; Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and; under Sections 5 and 9 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2) Heard Mr. A.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Ms. Supriya Kak, learned APP for the Respondent - State.
3) The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner is that, there is violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India
and there is also violation of Sections 47 and 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
4) Before referring to the contentions raised by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner in that behalf, it is necessary to mention under
what circumstances and allegations, the Petitioner is arrested. The
affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Police Inspector attached to
Meghwadi Police Station gives details of the offence as follows :-
On 19/07/2022, the first informant - Varsha Vitthal Pawar who
was working as a Member of Committed Community Development Trust, an
NGO, was informed by one Ms. Minal Pathare who was a co-worker at
Prayas Sanstha, that, during her work at Byculla Jail, she came in contact
with a lady who was the mother of the two minor victim girls. Those
victims were staying with one person in Hari Nagar, Jogeshwari (E),
Mumbai. That person sexually assaulted those two minor girls. The girls
were in danger. Upon instructions from Child Development Committee, Ms.
Pathare went to the residence of both those minor girls on 12/07/2022.
On 13/07/2022, both the victim girls were produced before the
Child Welfare Committee, Matunga, Mumbai. The said Committee directed
the Community Development Trust, Child Helpline, Dahisar Division,
Mumbai to take further legal action. The victim girls were staying with one
Raghu who was known to their mother. He was sexually exploiting those
victims. The victim girls further disclosed that one Prakash Jagtap used to
frequently take both of them in his car and he also sexually assaulted both
of them. Upon this complaint, the FIR was lodged by the first informant -
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
Smt. Varsha Pawar vide C.R.No.449/2022 at Meghwadi Police Station
against Prakash Rupchand Jagtap and Raghuvir Yadav @ Raghu.
During the investigation, the role of the Petitioner was
revealed. Statements of both the victims were recorded before a woman
Police Sub-Inspector. During the course of investigation, Test Identification
Parade was held. The Petitioner was placed in that Parade on 15/09/2022
and both the victim girls had identified the present Petitioner who was
shown as Accused No.2 in the said offence. The statements of both these
victim girls were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein they had
revealed the role of the present Petitioner. The age of one victim girl was
about 14 years and the age of the other victim girl was around 11 years.
Their birth dates were 29/07/2008 and 20/06/2011. According to the
prosecution case, they were taken to a resort. Though in their statements,
the Petitioner was not named, but paragraph 12 of the said affidavit-in-
reply mentions that during the course of the investigation, Test
Identification Parade of the Petitioner was conducted before the concerned
Magistrate on 15/09/2022 and both the victims had identified the
Petitioner. The incident had taken place in one resort. According to the
prosecution case mentioned in the Remand Report, the victim girls were
taken to the resort in the Petitioner's vehicle and there they were subjected
to sexual assault. This is the background in which the Petitioner came to be
arrested.
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
5) The affidavit-in-reply further mentions that the Petitioner was
arrested on 28/07/2022 at 23:46 hours (11:46 p.m.). The affidavit further
mentions that, as per the information given by the Petitioner, the requisite
information of his arrest was given to his wife Asha on 28/07/2022. A
Station Diary entry No.59/2022 in this regard was also taken. The
Petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge on 29/07/2022
at 03:00 p.m. for obtaining police custody and the Petitioner was remanded
to the police custody till 03/08/2022. The Petitioner never raised the
ground of his illegal detention before the learned Special Judge during his
Remand Applications. The case is pending before the learned Special Judge,
Dindoshi vide Special Case No.450/2022. The Petitioner had preferred Bail
Application before the learned trial Judge. It was rejected. Then he had
approached this Court vide Criminal Bail Application No.3334/2024. Vide
the Order dated 13/06/2025, a Single Judge Bench of this Court dismissed
the Bail Application as withdrawn with liberty to revive his request after
one year. In this background, the present Petition is filed much belatedly on
09/09/2025 raising the issue of non-compliance of the above provisions.
6) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the grounds
of arrest were not supplied to the Petitioner in writing. Similarly, there is
nothing to show that his wife was informed as per the requirements of
Section 48 of BNSS.
7) Learned APP, on the other hand, relied on the affidavit-in-reply
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
and invited our attention to the Diary details dated 28/07/2022 taken at
23:46 hours which clearly mentions that the three accused including the
present Petitioner were arrested after informing them about the grounds of
arrest. Similarly, it is further mentioned that the Petitioner's wife - Asha
Patil was informed about his arrest. All the accused were informed about
their rights and all the guidelines were followed.
8) We have considered these submissions.
9) Before discussing further, it is necessary to refer to the
provisions which according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, are
violated. Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Sections 47 and 48
of BNSS, 2023 read thus :-
" 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. -
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for
such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be
defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody
shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period
of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary
for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the
magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody
beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.
(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply--
(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy
alien; or
(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any
law providing for preventive detention.
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise
the detention of a person for a longer period than three months
unless--
(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or
have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of
a High Court has reported before the expiration of the
said period of three months that there is in its opinion
sufficient cause for such detention:
Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise
the detention of any person beyond the maximum period
prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-
clause (b) of clause (7); or
(b) such person is detained in accordance with the
provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-
clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).
(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order
made under any law providing for preventive detention, the
authority making the order shall, as soon as may be,
communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has
been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of
making a representation against the order.
(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making
any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose facts
which such authority considers to be against the public interest to
disclose.
(7) Parliament may by law prescribe--
(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes
of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period
longer than three months under any law providing for
preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an
Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-
clause (a) of clause (4);
(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
class or classes of cases be detained under any law providing
for preventive detention; and
(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an
inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4). "
10) Sections 47 and 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
2023 read thus :-
" Section 47. 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 48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform
about arrest, etc., to relative or friend.-
(1) Every police officer or other person making any
arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the
information regarding such arrest and place where the
arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends
or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by
the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information and also to the designated police officer in the
district.
(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 the State Government
may, by rules, provide.
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom
such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the
requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have
been complied with in respect of such arrested person. "
In this context, the contention of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner is that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the Petitioner
in writing and his wife was not informed about his arrest. The learned APP
invited our attention to the Arrest Memo annexed by the Petitioner himself
to this Petition. Page 54 of this Petition which is the Arrest Memo of the
Petitioner mentions that he was arrested at 23:46 hours on 28/07/2022.
Column No.8 specifically mentions the name of the Petitioner's wife to
whom the information was given about his arrest. The Arrest Memo bears
signature of the Petitioner himself in Column No.14. The Arrest Memo ends
with the remark as 'Place - Meghwadi Date : 28/07/2022'.
11) In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered
similar arguments regarding violation of these provisions in the case of
State of Karnataka v/s. Sri Darshan, etc . reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1702. This Judgment is the authority on this very subject and is binding on
all the Courts, the Police and the Petitioner as well. Relevant paragraphs
from that Judgment are paragraph No.20.1 onwards. Paragraph 20.1.1 and
paragraph 20.1.2 refer to Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 and Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. These are the very issues raised before us in this
Petition. Paragraph 20.1.3 has an important observation which is binding.
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
The said paragraph reads thus :-
" 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus
mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the
grounds of arrest - but neither provision prescribes a
specific form or insists upon written communication in
every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that
substantial compliance with these requirements is
sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. "
12) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this Judgment has also
considered the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vihaan Kumar v/s. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 456.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 20.1.4 of Sri Darshan's Judgment
has observed thus :-
" 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was
reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is
made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not
conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when
arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant
amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj
Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds
are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
13) Thus, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan
Kumar were further explained in the Judgment of Sri Darshan. Paragraph
20.1.5 further elaborates that mere absence of written grounds does not
ipso facto render the arrest illegal unless it results in demonstrable
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. The said paragraph
reads thus :-
" 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the
consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-
oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses.
The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto
render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable
prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. "
14) In paragraph 20.1.6, there was a reference to the gravity of the
offence as an important factor. In paragraph 20.1.7, it was further observed
that in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such irregularity is, at best, a
curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. It was observed
that the approach of the High Court in that case for treating the procedural
lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge
was against the settled principle. Paragraph 20.1.7 is important in that
context which reads thus :-
" 20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand
records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the
reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from
the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing
an immediate and informed understanding of the
accusations. No material has been placed on record to
establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged
procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice,
such irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by
itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking
the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the
existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal
and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions
turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts.
The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled
principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of
arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody
illegal or entitle the accused to bail. "
15) Thus, in the present case, these observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sri Darshan are extremely important. In the
present case, no such prejudice is shown by the Petitioner. The offence
undoubtedly is quite grave. There is strong material against the present
Petitioner which cannot be overlooked. Therefore, applying the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Darshan, we are not
inclined to grant any relief to the present Petitioner. Accordingly, the
Petition is dismissed.
16) Before parting with the Order, it is necessary to mention that
some clarity is necessary before the learned Magistrates, the learned
Session Judges and the Investigating Officers regarding this particular issue.
In this connection, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sri Darshan are very important and all of them are required to be
made aware of this position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Therefore, the Registry is directed to circulate the Judgment of the
P.H. Jayani 09 WP4750.2025.doc
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v/s. Sri Darshan,
etc. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 by highlighting the paragraph
Nos. 20.1 including 20.1.1 upto 20.1.7 to all the learned Judges under the
jurisdiction of this Court.
17) The Petition is disposed of.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
PREETI
HEERO
JAYANI
