Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a criminal writ petition filed by Dileep Loshan Mangesh Morje, who was arrested in connection with an FIR registered at Mandrem Police Station for various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case involves an alleged violent assault on Advocate Ankur Anil Kumar and his client during the execution of a demolition order. The petitioner, along with his son, daughter, and several unknown persons, allegedly attacked the complainant, causing serious injuries including damage to the eye. The petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pernem, Goa, who remanded him to police custody on 19th July 2026. The petitioner filed a bail application, which was rejected, and his remand was extended to police custody.
The petitioner challenged only the first remand order, contending that it was illegal on two grounds. First, the grounds of arrest provided to him were identical to those given to his son, despite their alleged roles being distinct. He argued that this violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, and relied on the judgment of this Court in Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik v. State of Maharashtra. Second, he submitted that the learned Magistrate was influenced by a Division Bench order dated 20th July 2026, which related to the same incident, and thus failed to independently assess the legality of the arrest. He claimed that he should have been remanded to judicial custody instead.
The respondent-State opposed the petition, arguing that the challenge to the first remand had become academic after bail was rejected and remand extended. On merits, it was contended that all accused were part of an unlawful assembly with a common object of assault, making the distinction in roles trivial. The State also submitted that the Chandrashekhar Naik case was inapplicable because the present offence attracted punishment exceeding seven years, attracting Section 35(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State emphasized the seriousness of the offence, the grievous injuries caused, and the need for custodial interrogation to identify other participants.
The Court, after hearing both sides, proceeded to analyze the legal provisions governing arrest and remand, including Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. However, the provided excerpt of the judgment concludes abruptly before the Court could pronounce its final decision. Consequently, the outcome of the petition is unknown from the given text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first remand order dated 19.07.2026 passed by JMFC, Pernem, is illegal on account of identical grounds of arrest provided to the petitioner and his son, and whether the magistrate was unduly influenced by a Division Bench order, violating the petitioner's rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 240
Criminal Writ Petition No. 738 of 2026 (F)
Mr Vinayak D. Porob, Mr Sairaj Ulhas Bhaje, Mr Baggir P. Monteiro, Mr Prathamesh S. Korgaonkar, Mr Eshwar A. Khobrekar, Mr Satyam V. Ghogate for the Petitioner; Mr. S. G. Bhobe, Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh for the Respondent-State
Dileep Loshan Mangesh Morje
State of Goa, Through the Officer in charge, Mandrem Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the first remand order to police custody.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 19th July 2026 remanding him to police custody, and contends that he should have been remanded to judicial custody instead.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleges that the grounds of arrest given were identical to the co-accused son, violating fundamental rights, and that the magistrate was influenced by a Division Bench order, making the remand illegal.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC rejected the petitioner's bail application and extended remand to police custody. The petitioner had not challenged the bail rejection but only the initial remand.
Issues
Whether the first remand order is illegal due to identical grounds of arrest provided to the petitioner and his son, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Whether the magistrate was unduly influenced by the Division Bench order dated 20th July 2026, thereby failing to independently assess the legality of arrest and the necessity of police custody.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that identical grounds of arrest were given to him and his son despite distinct roles, violating Article 22(1); relied on Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik v. State of Maharashtra.
Petitioner contended that the Magistrate was swayed by the Division Bench order dated 20.07.2026, did not independently assess the case, and should have remanded him to judicial custody.
Respondent argued that the petition is not maintainable as bail was rejected and remand extended; challenge to first remand became academic.
Respondent submitted that all accused were part of unlawful assembly with common object, making the distinction in grounds of arrest trivial.
Respondent distinguished Chandrashekhar Naik case as involving a lesser offence, while the present offence attracts punishment exceeding seven years, bringing it under Section 35(c) BNSS.
Respondent emphasised the seriousness of the offence, grievous injuries, destruction of property, intimidation, and the need for custodial interrogation to identify other accused.
Judgment Excerpts
the grounds of arrest given to the Petitioner are identical to those given to his son.
the Court must not act as an Investigating Agency or predetermine conclusions
the learned Magistrate remanded the Petitioner to police custody for production before the Court on 21st July 2026 at 10.00 a.m.
Procedural History
Complaint dated 18.07.2026 filed by Advocate Ankur Anil Kumar with Mandrem Police Station. FIR No. 66 of 2026 registered on 18.07.2026. Petitioner and his son arrested and produced before JMFC, Pernem, Goa on 19.07.2026. JMFC remanded the petitioner to police custody till 21.07.2026. On the same day, petitioner filed a bail application, which was heard by the JMFC on 21.07.2026, and rejected; remand further extended to police custody till 28.07.2026. Petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the first remand order dated 19.07.2026. Meanwhile, a Division Bench of the High Court passed an order dated 20.07.2026 in MCA No. 1906 of 2026 in Contempt Petition No. 30 of 2026, directing the SP to entrust investigation to an officer not below the rank of PI from a different police station.
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(3)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 35(b), 35(c)
- Constitution of India: 21, 22(1)
