1 wp-3342.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3342 OF 2010 Ganpatlal Jain/ Bohra. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil i/b. Mr.K.H.Holambe-Patil for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the respondent-State. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 7th December, 2010. P.C. : By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India two reliefs have been prayed. The first relief is to direct the respondents to produce Vinit Kumar Jain/ Bohra before the Court. The second relief is to initiate contempt action against the respondents for not complying the directions of 2 wp-3342.10 the Apex Court given in the case of D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997SC 3017. 2. The petition proceeds on the assumption that the said Vinit Kumar Jain/ Bohra was picked up by the respondents on 16th November, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. from the jewellery shop. The petitioner is also relying on the letters sent by the relatives of the said Vinit Kumar Jain to the concerned police officials on 16th November, 2010 and 17th November, 2010. The respondents, on the other hand, have denied the allegation that the said Vinit Kumar Jain/ Bohra was picked up from the jewellery shop on 16th November, 2010 as alleged. Instead, it is asserted in the reply affidavit that the said Vinit Kumar Jain/ Bohra was called to the police station on 16th November, 2010 at about 8.00 p.m. in relation to the inquiry pertaining to C.R.Nos.509/2010 and 18/2009. The said Vinit Kumar Jain attended the office of DCB CID at about 8.00 p.m. He was allowed to go after the enquiry. The fact that the said Vinit Kumar Jain / Bohra had visited the police station was also informed to his brother-in-law Takatmal Bhimraj Parmar and his cousin brother Ganpatlal Ranglal Bohra, the petitioner herein on telephone. Entry to that effect has been recorded in the station diary at about 8.10 p.m. on the same date. It is further stated that during the course of 3 wp-3342.10 enquiry, the brother-in-law of said Vinit Kumar Jain, namely, Takatmal B. Parmar came to the office of DCB CID at about 9.30 p.m. and handed over a letter dated 16th November, 2010 addressed by his advocate to the Senior Police Inspector, DCB, CID, Unit-VIII. After initial enquiry, the said Vinit Kumar Jain was allowed to leave the office along with his brother-in-law at about 10.45 p.m. with an intimation to the said Vinit Kumar Jain to attend office on the next day at about 11.00 a.m. Entry has been made to this effect in the station diary at about 10.45 p.m. It is then asserted that Vinit Kumar Jain did not attend the office of the DCB, CID on 17th November, 2010 and was, eventually, arrested on 20th November, 2010. Immediately after his arrest he was produced before the Vacation Court (Railway Mobile Court) at Andheri, Mumbai on 21st November, 2010. It appears that he made grievance before the concerned Court that he was, in fact, arrested on 18th November, 2010 as is noted in the remand order dated 21st November, 2010. 3. Suffice it to observe that the fact that said Vinit Kumar Jain was picked up from the jewellery shop on 16th November, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. has not been established by the petitioner at all. As a matter of fact, the assertions made in the petition are vague. Nothing is mentioned as to who saw the incident of 4 wp-3342.10 picking up of Vinit Kumar Jain from the jewellery shop on 16th November, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. Further the case made out in the reply affidavit filed by Mahadev D. Nimbalkar, Police Sub Inspector attached to DCB, CID, Unit- VIII, Mumbai has not been controverted before us. The fact that some letters were sent by the relatives of Vinit Kumar Jain mentioning that he was not traceable does not mean that he was, in fact, picked up by the police officials from the jewellery shop on 16th November, 2010 at about 11.00 a.m. as is alleged in paragraph-3 of the petition. 4. Whereas the complaint made before the concerned Magistrate when the said Vinit Kumar Jain was produced before the Vacation Court on 21st November, 2010 is that he was, in fact, arrested on 18th November, 2010. This stand of Vinit Kumar Jain belies the assertion of the petitioner that Vinit Kumar Jain was, in fact, picked up from the jewellery shop on 16th November, 2010 at about 11.00 a.m. as stated in paragraph-3 of the petition. Whether there is substance in the grievance made by the said Vinit Kumar Jain before the Vacation Court when he was produced on 21st November, 2010 that he was, in fact, arrested on 18th November, 2010 and was produced only on 21st November, 2010 after lapse of statutory period and that his continued arrest was, therefore, illegal 5 wp-3342.10 is a matter which can be inquired into by the appropriate Court at appropriate stage. We find no merit in this petition. The same is disposed of with the above observations. (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)