BOMBAY | JUNE 29, 2025 – The Bombay High Court has strongly emphasized that an arrested person must be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of detention, and this legal mandate cannot be circumvented on the pretext of pre-arrest medical examination.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT: BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The observation came in a Writ Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that his arrest under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was illegal. A Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain ruled on the matter. In 2023, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner, his wife, and others for alleged cheating, forgery, and dishonestly obtaining Rs 3,37,30,000. The petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was rejected by the High Court and later dismissed by the Supreme Court. On October 25, 2024, the Investigating Officer (IO) conducted a search and took the petitioner into custody. He was first taken to the Government Medical College for a pre-arrest medical examination. Doctors referred him to another government hospital, but police chose to take him to a private hospital for cardiac evaluation instead. He was admitted at midnight on October 26, 2024, and discharged the same evening. He was then taken back to the Government Medical College to obtain a fitness certificate. The formal arrest was recorded at night. The next day, October 27, 2024, at 12:20 p.m., he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), who passed the remand order.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
Rejecting the State’s justification for delay, the High Court observed:
“Based upon the pre-arrest medical examination theory, the legal and constitutional mandate of production of the arrested person before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his detention cannot be violated. Such action on the part of the police officer is likely to lead to unscrupulous tendencies, where after a person is arrested, he is not produced before the Magistrate till the hospital authorities declare him fit. This will give wrong signals to society and to the public at large. In our view, such a pre-arrest medical examination theory can be fraught with mischief and highly deplorable.” The Bench further held:
“… the justification sought to be made by the learned APP for not complying with the constitutional mandate on the pretext of pre-arrest medical examination is required to be rejected.” The Court also addressed the challenge to remand orders, observing: “Therefore, looked at from any angle, the contention raised by the learned APP that this Court should not entertain the present petition is required to be rejected. … In the present case also, there are allegations of cash transactions of substantial amounts. The learned senior counsel, in his usual fairness, did not oppose such directions being given in the present matter.”
DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT
The High Court directed the petitioner to furnish a Permanent Account Number (PAN) of himself and his wife to the Registrar, Appellate Side of the Court, within two weeks.
Additionally, it ordered:
“The Registrar to direct the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, having jurisdiction over the Petitioner and his wife, to conduct an enquiry and investigate into the cash transactions alleged in the present C.R.128 of 2024 and take necessary action against all the persons involved in the cash transactions.”
The Court, therefore, allowed the Writ Petition and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.
APPEARANCE
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Manoj Mohite, Advocates Pranav Pokale, Priyanka Chavan, Aditya Bagal, and Chinmay Sawant
Respondent/State: APP S.V. Gavand
