Accused Having To Wait Inside Police Station Before Inquiry Is Not Under Arrest: Bombay High Court
An accused having to wait inside the police station for inquiry because the investigating officer is busy in some other case cannot claim that he was 'under arrest', held the Bombay High Court recently. A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale dismissed a plea filed by one Manohar Pathare, who sought a declaration that the 'waiting time' in the station house...
An accused having to wait inside the police station for inquiry because the investigating officer is busy in some other case cannot claim that he was 'under arrest', held the Bombay High Court recently.
A division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale dismissed a plea filed by one Manohar Pathare, who sought a declaration that the 'waiting time' in the station house was actually a period by when he was arrested as at the police had total control over him and that his movement was restricted.
The bench noted that Pathare was mentioned as an accused in the First Information Report (FIR) lodged with the Dongri Police Station in Mumbai on June 4. The bench further noted that he was called for an enquiry and that the police had not gone to his residence or arrested him by picking him up from any place.
"Once the detenu (Pathare) came to the Police Station, it was well within the powers of the Police to make enquiry with him and only after being satisfied that his arrest was necessary, the arrest could be effected," the judges observed in the August 21 order.
In the present case, the bench said that the Investigating Officer sufficiently explained as to why the enquiry could not be made with the accused immediately as the said Investigating Officer was involved in another investigation where the accused in that case had suffered health issues and had to be taken to hospital. This explanation, the bench said was 'reasonable.'
"For that purpose, if the detenu in this case was made to wait in the Police Station, that would not amount to his arrest. There is nothing to show that, he was not allowed to contact or converse with his relatives. In fact, there is a phone record which shows that he was in touch with others till about 07.00 p.m. in the evening," the bench held.
The judges added that it was reasonable to expect from the Police Officers to satisfy themselves about the involvement of an accused before effecting actual arrest and that in the instant case, the Police had taken sufficient precaution.
"Therefore, we do not find fault with the procedure. In this situation, the case of the prosecution that, the detenu was kept under arrest at 8.15 p.m. on June 10, 2026 is acceptable. He was produced within 24 hours from that point onwards. It can not be accepted that, the moment the detenu stepped into the Police Station at around 11.00 a.m. on June 10, 2026, he was under arrest. Article 22(2) uses the phrase 'arrested and detained in custody'. Therefore, we do not find that this is a case of illegal detention. No relief can be granted in this Petition. The Petition is disposed of," the bench ruled.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the plea.
Appearance:
Advocates Priyanka Dubey, Saurabh Kamble, Utkarsh Shukla and Hitanshi Gajaria appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Supriya Kak represented the State.
Advocate Syed Shabana M Ali represented the Victim.
Case Title: Manohar Sharad Pathare vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 3221 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 403