1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Writ Petition No.1873 of 2007 Mr.P.D.Mathew Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.Rahul S. Kulkarni for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. June 24, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for a declaration that his arrest made by the police on 16/3/2007 was illegal and to award compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards the agony suffered by him and his family members. 2. The petitioner himself has admitted that on 16/3/2007 when he was arrested around 11 a.m., he was presented before the competent Magistrate on the same day at about 3.15 p.m. and was remanded to the police custody. He was again presented before the Magistrate on 20/3/2007 and Magisterial custody was granted till 2 30/3/2007 on which date he was released on bail. Mainly two grounds were advanced before us in support of the contention that the arrest was illegal viz. the grounds for arrest were not intimated to the petitioner and no intimation was given to the near relations. In addition it was pointed out that the arrest memo was not prepared when he was arrested. 3. Mr.Jitendra Koli, Police Sub Inspector presently attached to Nigadi Police Station has filed affidavit-in-reply and has stated that the present respondent no.2 who was the employer of the petitioner had filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri and it was registered as C.C. No.196 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 467 and 471 of IPC. The learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 21/6/2006. The affiant on 21/6/2006 registered MCS No.7 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 467 and 471 of IPC. He visited the house of the petitioner on the very same day and noticed that it was locked. The affiant further states that the residential premises of the petitioner were visited from time to time and 3 he could not be located and the premises were found locked. However, on 16/3/2007 the affiant got the information that the petitioner’s residential premises were open and he was available therein. The affiant, therefore, went to the petitioner’s house at about 11 a.m. and arrested him. The affiant further states that at the time of arrest the near relations of the petitioner were present and he was explained orally about the charges and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The affidavit further states that the son of the petitioner by name Shibit Mathew was also present at the police station at the time of the petitioner’s arrest. The petitioner was immediately referred for medical examination at the Government Hospital at Pimpri and medical certificate was issued bearing MLC No.35921 of 2007. The petitioner was presented before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pimpri. We do not find any reason to discard these statements made by the affiant more so when the petitioner was picked up from his own house and it is not denied that his son Shibit was present even at the police station. 4. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the arrest memo was not prepared. We had called 4 for the record and admittedly a separate arrest memo has not been prepared. At the same time the learned APP has produced before us the extracts of arrest register, the extract of entry no.18 made at 11.30 a.m. on 16/3/2007 in the Station Diary of Nigadi police station, the arrest form as well as the crime details. The station diary extract clearly states that the petitioner was arrested at 11 a.m. from his house and his son was informed about the same. 5. We, therefore, do not find any case made out even prima facie to hold that the petitioner was illegally arrested on 16/3/2007. Hence the petition is rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)