Arrest without following legal mandate: HC grants bail to Ahmedabad resident

Bombay High Court grants bail to Ahmedabad resident arrested in cheating case in Mumbai due to legal violations during arrest. Further hearing on May 3.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to an Ahmedabad resident after noticing that he had been arrested in an alleged cheating case registered in the city without following the mandate of law.

HT Image

“Prima facie, it appears that the police have not complied with the provisions of law and as such there is substance in the allegations made by the petitioner,” said the division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande while granting bail to Bhairaram Saraswat in view of the apparent violations of the legal mandate.

On March 11, the LT Marg police in Mumbai registered a cheating case against some individuals. Two/three policemen in plain clothes went to Saraswat’s workplace in Ahmedabad on March 19 and arrested him in connection with the cheating case and brought him to the city. On April 4th, Saraswat approached the high court to challenge his arrest, asserting that the police failed to adhere to legal procedures during his arrest and transfer to the city. His counsel argued that he was not informed about the grounds of his arrest, nor was he provided with an arrest memo. Furthermore, Saraswat’s family members were not informed either orally or in writing when he was forcibly taken from Ahmedabad.

The lawyers also emphasised that the arrest was purportedly carried out by police personnel in plain clothes who lacked any identifiable markers indicating their status as police officers. This, they argued, constituted a clear violation of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the DK Basu case.

Besides, it was also pointed out that he was arrested without issuing him a notice though mandated under section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and no transit remand was sought to bring him to the city. His lawyers further brought to the court’s attention that the investigating officer of the case allegedly used Saraswat’s phone for 10 days to communicate with his father and brother. During these exchanges, the officer allegedly demanded money from them to resolve the matter.

Public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar claimed that the police served Section 41A notice to Saraswat in Ahmedabad on March 19 itself, the judges doubted the claim and granted him bail on a cash bond of ₹25,000.

The court also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 2 to collect the petitioner’s CDR (Call Details Record) from March 19 to March 30 and also that of his co-accused, as Saraswat claimed that his mobile phone too was used by the investigating officer in a similar manner.

The court has now posted the petition for further hearing on May 3.