Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arrest and Remand in POCSO Case — Non-Communication of Grounds of Arrest Does Not Vitiate Custody After Charge Sheet. The Court held that the remedy for violation of Article 22(1) is not automatic release and the filing of charge sheet cures any initial defect in arrest.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 74
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Shankarrao Wadhave, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the legality of his arrest dated 03.08.2021 and the subsequent remand orders passed by the Special Court (POCSO), Aurangabad. The arrest was made in connection with FIR No.461 of 2021 registered at Chhavni Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 354, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 9(M)(N), 10, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The petitioner was arrested on 03.08.2021 and produced before the Special Court on 04.08.2021 within 24 hours. The Special Court refused police custody and remanded him to judicial custody initially till 17.08.2021, with extensions from time to time. The investigation culminated in a charge sheet filed on 13.09.2021. The petitioner's bail applications were rejected by the High Court, and a Special Leave Petition was pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of CrPC, rendering the arrest illegal and vitiating the remand orders. The State opposed the petition, contending that the arrest was lawful and the remand orders were valid. The Court held that even assuming non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50, the arrest was not rendered illegal as the petitioner was produced within 24 hours and the charge sheet had been filed. The Court noted that the remedy for violation of the right to be informed of grounds of arrest is not automatic release but may be considered in bail proceedings. Since the petitioner was in custody pursuant to the charge sheet and his bail had been rejected, the challenge to the arrest and remand orders was rendered infructuous. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the arrest and remand orders.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to be Informed of Grounds of Arrest - Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of CrPC - The petitioner challenged his arrest and remand orders on the ground that grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. The Court held that even assuming non-compliance, the arrest was not rendered illegal as the petitioner was produced within 24 hours and the charge sheet was filed. The remedy for violation of Article 22(1) is not automatic release but may be considered in bail proceedings. (Paras 5-7)

B) Criminal Procedure - Remand Orders - Section 167 of CrPC - The petitioner argued that remand orders were vitiated due to initial illegal arrest. The Court held that once the charge sheet is filed under Section 173 of CrPC, the custody is under the order of the Magistrate and not solely based on the initial arrest. The remand orders were passed after production within 24 hours and were valid. (Paras 3-4, 7)

C) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 of CrPC - The Court declined to quash the arrest or remand orders, noting that the petitioner had alternative remedies such as bail, which had been rejected. The petition was dismissed as the challenge to arrest and remand was rendered infructuous by the filing of the charge sheet. (Paras 7-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arrest and subsequent remand orders are vitiated for non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of CrPC regarding communication of grounds of arrest.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, holding that the arrest and remand orders were not vitiated. The Court observed that even if there was non-compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC, the remedy is not automatic release but may be considered in bail proceedings. Since the charge sheet was filed and the petitioner's bail was rejected, the petition was dismissed.

Law Points

  • Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
  • Section 50 of CrPC
  • Section 167 of CrPC
  • Section 482 of CrPC
  • Grounds of arrest
  • Remand orders
  • Custody after charge sheet
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (09) 41

Criminal Writ Petition No.769 of 2025

2025-09-18

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, Hiten S. Venegavkar

2025:BHC-AUG:26526-DB

Mr. Kedar Warad (appointed), Ms. Savita G. Mapari, Mr. G.A. Kulkarni (APP)

Rahul S/o. Shankarrao Wadhave

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging legality of arrest and remand orders under Section 482 CrPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought declaration that his arrest dated 03.08.2021 and subsequent remand orders were illegal and sought his release.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that grounds of arrest were not communicated to him as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC, rendering arrest and remand orders illegal.

Previous Decisions

Bail applications of petitioner were rejected by the High Court; Special Leave Petition pending before Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the arrest of the petitioner was illegal for non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC? Whether the remand orders passed by the Special Court are vitiated due to the alleged illegal arrest?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that grounds of arrest were not furnished orally or in writing at the time of arrest, violating Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC, and thus arrest and remand orders are illegal. Respondent State argued that arrest was lawful, petitioner was produced within 24 hours, and charge sheet has been filed, so challenge is infructuous.

Ratio Decidendi

Non-communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 CrPC does not per se render the arrest illegal or vitiate subsequent remand orders, especially when the accused is produced within 24 hours and a charge sheet is filed. The remedy for such violation lies in bail proceedings, not in quashing the arrest or remand.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner herein invokes inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assail; (a) the legality of his arrest dated 03.08.2021 ... and (b) the legality of the initial and successive remand orders commencing from 04.08.2021. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued by placing reliance on the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., that the 'grounds of arrest' were not furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest.

Procedural History

FIR No.461/2021 registered on 03.08.2021; petitioner arrested on 03.08.2021; produced before Special Court on 04.08.2021; remanded to judicial custody initially till 17.08.2021; extensions granted; charge sheet filed on 13.09.2021; bail rejected by High Court; Special Leave Petition pending before Supreme Court; present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging arrest and remand orders.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 22(1)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 50, Section 167, Section 173, Section 482
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 354, Section 323, Section 506
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Section 9(M)(N), Section 10, Section 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Government Appeal Against Declaration of Lapsed Land Acquisition Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Possession Taken Prior to Act...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment Allowing Sales Tax Exemption to Assessee Under Industrial Policy Resolutions. Exemption Requires Manufacturing Activity and Emergence of New Goods; High Court Failed to Examine Actual Process and Statutory...