In a significant ruling that underscores constitutional protections in criminal procedure, the Bombay High Court has declared the arrest of Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar in a murder case as illegal due to procedural lapses. The court stated that merely informing the wife of an arrested individual about the arrest does not fulfill the legal requirements for a valid warrantless detention under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Constitution. The court ordered Nimbalkar’s immediate release on bail, concluding that his arrest failed to meet the fundamental standards of due process.
The case was adjudicated by a division bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 17029 of 2024, filed by Nimbalkar, who challenged the legality of his arrest. Represented by a legal team including Mr. Suyash N. Khose, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mr. Mangesh Kusurkar, and Mr. Siddharth Sutaria, Nimbalkar contended that his detention violated his constitutional rights. Assistant Public Prosecutor Ms. S.S. Kaushik argued on behalf of the State of Maharashtra.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to a violent altercation on October 30, 2023, allegedly involving family disputes over a relationship. According to the FIR filed at Karad City Police Station (FIR No. 1191/2023), the confrontation led to the fatal assault of a local man, Janardhan Gurav. The complainant, Pramod Vishwas Pawar, alleged that a group, including the accused Nimbalkar, forcibly took him, his father, and Gurav in a car, attacking them severely. Gurav succumbed to his injuries, leading to charges against Nimbalkar and others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 for murder.
Initially, Nimbalkar was not named in the complaint but was subsequently included based on police investigations. On November 1, 2023, he was detained and brought before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Karad. Following multiple remand orders, he remained in custody while his bail plea awaited a decision.
Legal Arguments and Issues Raised
Nimbalkar’s counsel argued that the arrest violated Section 50 of the CrPC, which mandates that any individual arrested without a warrant must be immediately informed of the grounds of arrest. Additionally, Article 22(1) of the Constitution protects individuals from being detained without prompt notification of arrest grounds. The petitioner’s counsel argued that, in this case, the police only communicated the arrest to Nimbalkar’s wife over the phone, an action that, according to the court, was inadequate to meet constitutional and statutory obligations.
The defence relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, which outline procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary detention. The counsel highlighted that successive remand orders alone cannot validate an initially illegal arrest and that informing a family member does not equate to communicating the grounds directly to the accused.
In response, the State presented an affidavit by Assistant Police Inspector Rajesh Prakash Mali, who argued that Nimbalkar was notified about his arrest, with the police further informing his wife and conducting necessary procedural steps like medical examination. However, the court found these actions insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 and Article 22(1).
Key Observations of the Court
In its judgment, the court emphasized the distinction between “reasons of arrest” and “grounds of arrest.” Citing the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court clarified that reasons for an arrest may be general, such as to prevent tampering with evidence or to ensure public safety, but grounds must specifically relate to the facts and evidence against the accused.
The bench remarked:
“The grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail… Grounds of arrest are personal to the accused and cannot be substituted by general reasons.”
Further, the court underscored that informing a family member alone does not satisfy the statutory requirement of direct communication to the detainee. The court noted, “It is the requirement of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. that an accused, who is being arrested without warrant, be forthwith communicated about the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or the other grounds for such arrest.”
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the arguments and procedural records, the court concluded that Nimbalkar’s arrest was carried out in contravention of both Section 50 of the CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Justice Deshpande, writing for the bench, observed that the absence of proper grounds of arrest made the detention “grossly illegal” and “a nullity,” warranting immediate release.
As a result, the court quashed the remand orders and directed Nimbalkar’s release on a bail bond to be approved by the trial court. The court also clarified that its observations were limited to the procedural legality of the arrest and did not affect the substantive charges pending against Nimbalkar in the case.
