← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/744/2016disposed off

Balkrishna S/O Damodar Amrutkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-08-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K. K. Sonawane2 pages

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ______________________________________________________ 27 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.744 OF 2016 BALKRISHNA S/O DAMODAR AMRUTKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.Nagargoje Prashant M APP for Respondents/State: Mr.A.R. Borulkar.

...

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

Dated: August 16, 2016 ...

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP appearing for the respondents / State. With their able assistance, perused the documents placed on record and the reply filed by the respondents.

2.

It appears from the documents placed on record that the concerned Police Officer, in pursuance of the non bailable warrant issued to the petitioner, took the petitioner in custody on 19th June, 2012 at about 12.00 p.m. and thereafter, he was produced before the Magistrate on 19th June, 2012 at 3.40 p.m. We are not able to comprehend the submission of the

744.16crwp learned Counsel for the petitioner as to which procedure was not followed by the Police Officer. Even, if we take the contention of the petitioner as it stands that the petitioner was arrested on 18th June, 2012 at 7 p.m. and produced before the Magistrate on 19th June, 2012 at 3.40 p.m., the said arrest and production before the Magistrate was in pursuance of the non bailable warrant issued by the Magistrate.

By any stretch of imagination, we do not think that this is a case wherein this Court can adjudicate the prayers for compensation and also inquiry of the respondent - Officer.

3.

In that view of the matter, since the petition raises disputed questions of facts, the petition is devoid of any merits and the same stands rejected.

(K.K. SONAWANE, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J) kadam/