Pravin Rameshwar Lonkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

9-WO-5738-2025.DOC Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5738 OF 2025 Pravin Rameshwar Lonkar ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors

...Respondents

Mr. Siddharth Agrawal, (through VC), with Piyush Todkar, for the Petitioner.

Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, AGP , for the Respondents-State.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

11th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 26th September 2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, MCOCA, in MCOCA Special Case No. 52 of 2025, whereby an Application preferred by the Petitioner ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL to direct the Respondents to produce the CC TV footage of the police ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.11.12 11:25:14 +0530 station, came to be rejected.

3.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it was the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was illegally arrested on 13th October 2024. To substantiate the claim of the Petitioner that the arrest was illegal, the production of the CC TV footage is necessary. The learned Special Judge was of the view that the Petitioner had not raised 1/2

9-WO-5738-2025.DOC the grievance that the arrest of the Petitioner is illegal, at a prior point of time.

4.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly conceded that the Petitioner had not made grievance of illegal arrest at an earlier point of time and only in the instant Application such ground was raised. 5.

Since, post the arrest, the Petitioner has subsequently been remanded to police and judicial custody and, post completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been lodged, at this juncture, the prayer for production of the CC TV footage on the ground that the arrest was illegal, partakes the character of a roving enquiry. The learned Special Judge was thus justified in rejecting the Application for production of the CC TV footage.

6.

In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the Petition.

7.

The Petition stands dismissed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/2