1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2009 Mr.Sarvasiddhi Krishnamohan .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents And Shri R. A. Patankar .. Applicant / Intervenor Mr.A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner Ms.A.S.Pai, A.P.P. for the State Mr.J.G. Gaikwad for the intervenor CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.A. SAYED, JJ DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs : 2 a. the filing of the affidavit of the petitioner was dispensed with as he is in Jail. b. That this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate ’ writ, order and direction directing the respondents to disclose on oath details of cases registered by the Police authorities scattered all over Maharashtra and request of arrest received by them from other States; c. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon ble Court be pleased to direct the ’ respondents not to take custody of the petitioner on the cases registered against the petitioners in different Police Stations. d. For interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) above; e. Any such other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 3. Further, there is also an affidavit filed by his wife Ankita in support of the petition. 3 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has been arrested in various cases without giving him a opportunity to defend himself. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the police are not following the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416 in the case of the petitioner and the custody of the petitioner is handed over to different police stations one after another. 5. In response to the petition, we had called upon the Investigating Officer who is of the rank of A.C.P. to file his affidavit. Accordingly, Mr.Vasant Raghunath Dhobale, Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to E.O.W. has filed his affidavit wherein he has given details of the cases which are registered against the petitioner and under investigation. In so far as Mumbai is concerned, in all 17 cases are registered against him. There is one case registered by Vashi Police Station and two in District Pune namely, Vishram Baug Police Station and Khadak Police Station and three are registered in Bangalore namely, S.R.Nagar Police Station, Bangalore Basavangudi Police Station and R.T. Nagar Police Station wherein all investigations are pending. The nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are broadly concerned with forgery, cheating and misappropriation of funds. 4 6. In one of the case, CR.No.4 of 2007 in which charge sheet has been filed, it has been noted that after his release, the petitioner who is the accused in the case did not attend the court. In so far as this fact is concerned, in case the petitioner is arrested and is in custody whether it is police custody or judicial custody, he is not expected to be present in the court unless the court of Sessions issues warrant for his presence. One can understand if the accused is on bail, he is expected to attend the court. 7. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that the guidelines under D.K.Basu s case (Supra) are not been complied with, we find that as the ’ petitioner is found involved in various cases registered in various police stations, alleged to have cheated different persons, it cannot be said that the respondent State i.e. the investigating agencies are not following any of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basu s case ’ (Supra). On the contrary, the petitioner himself is now aware of the matters, so also his wife, about the involvement of the petitioner in these cases. 8. The petitioner cannot have a grievance against Police Stations who have registered cases against him on complaints lodged by persons alleged to have been cheated by the petitioner and they will have to investigate the 5 matter in accordance with law and file their report/charge sheet. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not produced before the Magistrate immediately after his arrest. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any case, he can always file an application before the concerned Magistrate or apprise the Magistrate before whom he has been produced about his grievance in the matter and the learned Magistrate is bound to take cognizance of such complaints at the time of passing an order on the application for remand. 9. In our view, any interference by this court at this stage may result in miscarriage of Justice, both to the victim as well as the suspect i.e. the petitioner. Therefore, we do not want to issue any orders in the matter which may have an impact on the ongoing investigations being conducted by various police stations. 10. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to place his grievance before the concerned Magistrate as and when he is produced before the court while in police custody/judicial custody preferably in writing so that the concerned Magistrate can pass appropriate orders. 11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, Criminal Application No.371 of 2009 is rejected. 6 12. After we dictated the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation made by this court while disposing of the petition should not come in the way of the petitioner in obtaining pre- arrest bail / regular bail. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out to us what observation would come in his way if he avails of the relief of pre-arrest bail / regular bail, as it is a settled law that when a person applies for pre-arrest bail / regular bail, the learned Court of Sessions / Magistrate as the case may be, would consider the case on its own merits. ( J. N. Patel, J) (A.A. Sayed, J)