HC dismisses plea by Anil Jaisinghani against ‘illegal arrest’ as ‘dehors of merits’

Senior advocate Mrigendra Singh and advocate Manan Sanghai, representing Jaisinghani, said that on March 19 he was “arrested” from Godhra for allegedly blackmailing and attempting to extort Rs 10 crore from Amruta. However, Singh said Jaisinghani was not produced before a magistrate located between Godhra and Mumbai and was instead produced before a sessions judge in Mumbai after 36 hours, which was against the law.

“Everything was being monitored by the husband of the complainant, who is the home minister in the Maharashtra government,” he alleged.

Singh argued that the Mumbai police had said in a press conference on March 20 that they had taken Jaisinghani into custody, which he claimed was unlawful and violated fundamental rights due to the delay in the accused being produced before the magistrate.

However, Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the state and Mumbai Police, said police had merely detained Jaisinghani after he was traced with the help of Gujarat police at 2.25 am on March 20 and wanted to produce him before the competent court in Mumbai.

He added that the team took 11 hours to travel from Godhra to Mumbai and, as per the arrest memo, Jaisinghani was arrested in Mumbai at 5 pm on March 20, and produced before the sessions court at 11 am on March 21.
Saraf maintained that the travel time was to be excluded from the prescribed duration of 24 hours, within which an accused is to be produced before the magistrate. Jaisinghanis’ lawyer denied the state’s claims.

The bench noted that it was apparent that the petitioners, in particular Jaisinghani, were detained in the early hours between March 19 and March 20 at Vejalpur near Bedia Naka in Gujarat.

“Except electronic news, nothing is on record to show that the accused were arrested on March 19 at 11:45 pm.The reasons put forth by the Investigating Officer are satisfactory and therefore arrest cannot be said to be illegal,” observed a division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Prakash D Naik.

The court noted that Article 22 (2) of the Constitution stated that every person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, excluding the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate.

It also referred to Section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), provided that a person arrested should not be detained for more than 24 hours.

“Assuming for the sake of argument, they were detained at Vejalpur at 2.25 am, after excluding the period of travel required for the said place to Mumbai, the petitioners were thereafter produced before the concerned court of competent jurisdiction within the stipulated period. According to us, in the present case there is no breach of Article 22(2) of Constitution of India and/or Section 57 of CrPC is committed by the respondent-state. Petition being dehors of merits is accordingly dismissed,” the court held.

Aniksha was granted bail by the special court on March 27. The Special Court on April 1 rejected Jaisinghani’s bail plea, but granted relief to Nirmal