THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus TASNEEM RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 05-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
v.
TASNEEM RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE
(Criminal Appeal No.1124 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Writs – Habeas Corpus – Husband of respondent was arrested
by police in connection to an offence under investigation –
Thereafter, Magistrate remanded him to police custody – Whether a
writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person
who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the
jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with offence under
investigation – High Court held that husband of respondent was
illegally and unlawfully detained by the police and made scathing
observations against the police officials – On appeal, held: In instant
case, admittedly, when the writ petition for issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus was filed by the respondent in the High Court,
husband of respondent during this time was in police custody
pursuant to an order passed by the Magistrate granting his police
custody in connection with FIR – Further, writ petition was filed
without challenging the order of the Magistrate – It was not a case
of continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial
custody by virtue of an order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate,
which was in force, granting police remand during investigation of
a criminal case – No writ of habeas corpus could have been issued
– Thus, High Court erred by entering upon the merits of the arrest
in absence of any challenge to the judicial order passed by the
Magistrate – Furthermore, the High Court wrongly made scathing
observations against the police officials without giving them
opportunity to offer explanation on affidavit – Accordingly, order
of the High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.420, 201, 171,
467, 468 and 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.160
and 41-A – Information Technology Act, 2000 – ss.66, 72 and 72(a)
– Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 – s.26.
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 374
 374
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  In the present case, admittedly, when the writ
petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed by the
respondent and subsequently, decided by the High Court her
husband was in police custody pursuant to an order passed by
the Magistrate granting his police custody in connection with
FIR.  Further, without challenging the stated order of the
Magistrate, a writ petition was filed limited to the relief of habeas
corpus. In that view of the matter, it was not a case of continued
illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial custody by
virtue of an order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, which
was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a
criminal case. Resultantly, no writ of habeas corpus could be
issued. [Para 9][381-H; 382-A-C]
2. The impugned order of the High Court was passed
notwithstanding the judicial order of remand was still in operation.
The High Court, should not have taken umbrage to the
submission made on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
that the respondent’s husband could be released if so directed
by the Court. The DCP had no other option but to make such a
submission. For, he could not have voluntarily released the
accused who was in police custody pursuant to a judicial order in
force. The High Court ought not to have made scathing
observations even against the Investigating Officer without giving
him opportunity to offer his explanation on affidavit.
[Para 10] [382-F-G]
3. Since no writ of habeas corpus could be issued in the fact
situation of the present case, the High Court should have been
loath to enter upon the merits of the arrest in absence of any
challenge to the judicial order passed by the Magistrate granting
police custody and more particularly for reasons mentioned in
that order of the Magistrate. In a somewhat similar situation,
this Court in State represented by Inspector of Police and Ors. v.
N.M.T. Joy Immaculate deprecated passing of disparaging and
strong remarks by the High Court against the Investigating
Officer and about the investigation done by them. Accordingly,
the observations made in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the impugned
judgment against the concerned police officials in the facts of the
present case are expunged. [Para 11] [382-H; 383-A-C]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. TASNEEM RIZWAN
SIDDIQUEE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.