The Supreme Court in the case Pandit v. The State of Maharashtra observed and disapproved the act of the Maharashtra police obtaining a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against a man. The Top Court also noted of the order of the Magistrate sending him to judicial custody despite the fact that an interim order staying his arrest was passed by the Apex Court itself.
The vacation bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari observed while dealing with the petition filled by one of the petitioner named Pandit, who was sent to judicial custody in connection with an alleged cheating case in Maharashtra and when an interim order regarding stay on his arrest was in operation.
The court observed that despite its specific interim order of May 7, 2021, the prosecution had obtained non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and when the petitioner appeared before the Court, by his order dated 24.06.2022, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur, sent him to judicial custody.
A notice was ordered by the Court on May 7, 2021, which was returnable within 6 weeks and the court ordered that in the meantime the petitioner shall not be arrested.
It was observed by the Magistrate Court that the interim protection from arrest had come to an end after six weeks from the order of the Supreme Court dated May 7, 2021. Further, the Top Court noted that Magistrate calculated six weeks from the returnable date of the notice issued by the May 7, 2021 order and which was not correct.
The Court added that in the order dated 24.06.2022, what has been observed by the learned Magistrate is the only reason for detention of the petitioner in judicial custody and the bona fide of the prosecuting agency and about the operation of the order of this court, the understanding of the learned Magistrate become the matter of serious concern.
The court further observed that however, this court didn’t make any other comment in the matter and granted state’s counsel some time to file response to the application. Thereafter, at the same time the Court directed that the petitioner, if not required in any other case, be released today itself and the compliance be reported without fail today itself.
Further, the court directed that the order needs to be communicated by mail to the Magistrate and a copy to be supplied to the State for appropriate instructions immediately.
Accordingly, the matter will be next considered on July 7.
