SC seeks explanation from magistrate who detained man despite apex court ban

The accused named Pandit, employed as a sub-registrar, was accused of registering a forged land deed and acting in concert with the other accused in committing cheating and forgery

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought explanation from a magistrate in Maharashtra’s Latur district for detaining a man in jail despite an order by the top court restraining his arrest.

Police claimed a non-bailable warrant was issued by the magistrate suo moto on June 18. (File image)

The top court had protected the man from arrest on May 7 but the magistrate passed an order on June 24 remanding the accused to judicial custody despite being made aware of the Supreme Court’s direction.

A bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose felt it was appropriate to seek an explanation from the judicial magistrate, First Class, Latur on the order passed as the man had been released from jail on July 4, within hours after the apex court came to know about violation of its order and directed his immediate release.

The accused named Pandit, employed as a sub-registrar, was accused of registering a forged land deed and acting in concert with the other accused in committing cheating and forgery. The case against him was under probe at the MIDC police station in Latur.

On July 5, the Maharashtra police filed an affidavit explaining that there was no fault on its part as the magistrate was apprised of the top court’s May 7 order.

Further, the police claimed that a non-bailable warrant against the accused was issued by the magistrate suo moto on June 18 even though the police kept insisting they do not need his custody.

Moreover, the charge sheet in the case had already been filed.

The bench said, “Taking note of the submissions as made in the counter affidavit dated July 5 filed by the Police Inspector, MIDC Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra, we prima facie find that the learned Magistrate who has dealt with the matter need to explain the detention order passed by him qua the petitioner on June 24, 2022 which was standing directly in conflict with the interim order passed by this Court.”

The May 7 order passed by the top court said, “Issue notice, returnable in six weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR bearing CR No. 361 of 2020 registered with the MIDC, Police Station, Latur, Maharashtra.”

On July 4, the accused through advocate Kunal Cheema had informed the top court about his detention that led to the apex court passing an order for his release. The bench had indicated on that day that the matter gave rise to questions on the bona fide of prosecuting agency as also on the understanding of the Magistrate about the operation of the May 7 order.

The bench had said, “it is rather intriguing to notice that despite specific interim order of this Court that the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR… the prosecution obtained non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and when he appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Latur, by his order dated June 24, 2022, observed that interim protection from arrest came to an end after six weeks from the order of this Court.”

Incidentally, May 7 did not set any time limit for the protection to lapse. Rather, the order mentioned six weeks as the period for the state to file its response to Pandit’s petition for anticipatory bail after the same stood rejected by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court on January 20, 2021.

The top court, which ordered Pandit’s release on July 4, had observed, “The bona fide of the prosecuting agency and the understanding of the Magistrate about the operation of the order of this Court become matters of serious concern.”

Directing a copy of the Maharashtra Police affidavit along with the past orders of the top court to be sent to the magistrate, the bench said, “Before saying anything further in the matter, we deem it appropriate to extend an opportunity of explanation to the learned Magistrate who had passed the order.” The Court expected the Magistrate to submit a response within a week and directed the matter to be heard in the first week of August.