1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1124 OF  2018 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2846/2018)

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.      …..Appellant(s)   :Versus:

Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee     ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellants  have  assailed the  decision  of the  High

Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 21st March, 2018 in Writ

Petition No.1353 of 2018, whereby the High Court allowed the

writ petition preferred by the respondent, for issue of writ of

habeas corpus directing the appellants to produce her

2

husband who, according to the respondent, was illegally and

unlawfully detained by the police in connection with FIR No.I­

31/2018.   3.  The decision of the High Court is assailed essentially on

two counts.  First, that  no  writ of  habeas corpus could  be

issued  in respect of  a person who was  in police custody in

connection with a criminal case under investigation, pursuant

to an order of remand passed by the court of competent

jurisdiction. Second, in any case, the High Court should have

refrained from making scathing observations against the

concerned police officials and the said remarks should be

expunged.  

4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal

are that on 24th  January, 2018, a secret information  was

received by the local police that one Mukesh Pandian, who is a

private detective, was obtaining call detail records of different

people  and was selling them  in  return  for  hefty  amount  of

money. The police caused the arrest of Mukesh Pandian and

sought call  details of  Vodafone  Company.  First Information

3

Report, bearing  No.I­31/18  was registered against  Mukesh

Pandian for offences punishable under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66, 72 and 72(a) of the

Information Technology  Act,  2000.  During  the  investigation,

additional offences under Section 26 of the Indian Telegraphs

Act, 1885 and Sections 201, 171, 467, 468 and 120­B of IPC

were added. Later on, police arrested one Prasant Palekar and

found various mobile chats in his mobile including with

Rizwan Alam Siddique (husband of the respondent herein) and

other persons. The chat record collected by the police during

the investigation, between Rizwan Alam Siddique and Prasant

Palekar, disclosed that Rizwan Alam Siddique had asked

Prasant Palekar for call details record of the wife of one

Nawazuddin Siddique, indicative of involvement of Rizwan

Alam Siddique  in  the commission of  offence.  As a result,  a

notice was issued to Rizwan Alam Siddique on 14th February,

2018 under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in

response to  which he informed the police that he  will be

travelling till 21st  February, 2018 and will appear before the

4

police  after  22nd  February,  2018.  As  assured,  Rizwan  Alam

Siddique visited the police station on 23rd February, 2018 for

recording  of  his  statement.  As the investigation  progressed,

presence of Rizwan Alam Siddique was found to be necessary

by the Investigating Officer who, therefore, tried to get in touch

with him by sending messages on his mobile phone on 15th

March,  2018.  Rizwan Alam Siddique responded  to the  said

messages and showed  his  willingness to participate in the

investigation. However, according to the Investigating Officer

he did not cooperate with the police and for which reason, by

way of abundant precaution, on 16th March, 2018 the police

issued notice under Section 41­A of Cr.P.C. which notice was

attempted to be served but refused by Rizwan Alam Siddique.

Further, when the Investigating Officer along with his

subordinates went to the premises of Rizwan Alam Siddique to

serve the said notice, it transpired that Rizwan Alam Siddique

was destroying the evidence in his mobile phone as well as in

his laptop and, therefore, the Investigating Officer took a

conscious decision to arrest him by taking assistance from the

5

nearest police station i.e. Versova Police Station. After his

arrest, he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on

17th  March, 2018 within the statutory period. The

jurisdictional  Magistrate gave the police custody of  Rizwan

Alam Siddique until  23rd  March,  2018   after  recording his

satisfaction for such police remand.  

5. The respondent, however, rushed to the High Court and

filed a writ petition on 18th/19th  March, 2018, being  Writ

Petition No.1353/2018 praying for a direction to the

appellants  (respondents  in  the writ  petition) to produce her

husband before the Court and to justify his detention in

accordance with procedure established by law. Further relief

claimed  was to set  her  husband  Rizwan  Alam Siddique at

liberty.  The  writ  petition  was  moved  on  20th  March,  2018

when the Court in its order recorded as follows:

“4. Mr. Merchant would submit that once this notice is issued, then, in terms of sub­section (1), the police officer was satisfied that the arrest of the petitioner's husband is not required and that the matter falls under the provisions of sub­section (1) of Section 41. He, therefore, was pleased to issue a notice directing the petitioner's husband to appear before him at such place as is specified in the notice.

6

5.  The factual  argument  is  that  this notice is dated 16th March 2018 and it informs the husband of the petitioner to appear before the officer signing this notice on 17th March 2018. Mr. Merchant would submit that sub­section 2 of Section 41­A contemplates issuance of such notice but such phrase would have to be construed as “service or execution of notice”, else sub­section 1 would be rendered otiose. Therefore,  until the  person fails to  comply  with the terms of notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by the competent  Court in  this  behalf, unable to arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. If there was compliance with the notice by the petitioner's husband, then, no question arises, according to  Mr.  Merchant, of  presentation  of such petition, but it is the respondents' assertion that when they sought to serve this notice on the  petitioner's husband, he refused. That is how the panchanama is drawn.  

6. Since Mr. Merchant says and on the basis of the pleadings in the petition, that there was a panchanama drawn and a copy of which is at pages 41 and 42 of the paper book, we have carefully perused it. It is in Marathi.

7. The whole panchanama has been perused with the assistance of Mr. Yagnik, learned APP, who with all his persuasive ability, could not find any sentence therein to the effect that the petitioner's husband refused to accept this notice when it was served on him at his place of work/his office. In these circumstances and particularly when the notice at page 42 also contains below the signatures of panchas and the senior police inspector, the signature of the accused, then, whether it is a signature acknowledging the notice and it's receipt or is it asserting, as is now stated across the bar by Mr. Yagnik, his refusal. Once such a statement is  absent in the  panchanama, then,  we prima  facie find it very difficult to agree with Mr. Yagnik.  

8. However, Mr. Yagnik prays for time to produce the contemporaneous record, which according to him, would indicate that the noticee/husband of the

7

petitioner refused to accept the notice referable to and styled as one under sub­section (1) of Section 41­A of Cr.P.C. On a query as to where is the original record or the contemporaneous record, the answer of Mr. Yagnik is that today in the ongoing legislative assembly session, there is a query and which has to be answered by the concerned Minister and he requires the original documents so also officer's presence in the legislature secretariat.  That  is how the whole record has been taken to the legislative assembly secretariat. Mr. Yagnik, therefore, seeks time till tomorrow, which is 21st March 2018 at 11.00 a.m.. We post this matter tomorrow, 21st  March 2018 at 11.00 a.m. only to enable Mr. Yagnik to produce such record and answer the queries of the Court; else, all the consequences in law shall follow.  

9. This opportunity is granted to  Mr. Yagnik only because the  document  at  pages  41  and 42 denotes that not only the petitioner's husband was present at his office but he and his staff handed over the articles and details of his e­mail identity, mobile and related information. The panchanama records that preparation of the same had commenced at 20.10 hours and ended at 22.10 hours on 16th March 2018.  

10. Stand over to 21st March 2018 at 11.00 a.m.”

6. Again, the matter was listed on 21st March, 2018 when

the  Division Bench of the  High Court perused the record

produced by the Public Prosecutor, including the entry in the

police diary, the remand report and other documents. It held

that the said record did not show necessary compliance of the

mandate of law before the arrest  of  Rizwan Alam Siddique.

8

After recording that finding, it went on to observe that such

arrest infringes the valuable right guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution and, therefore, acceded to the request of

the respondent to set Rizwan Alam Siddique at liberty

forthwith. At the same time, the High Court went on to make

scathing observations against the police officials as recorded

in paragraphs 4­6 of the impugned judgment,  which read

thus:

“4. A brief hearing today resulted in Ms. Pai seeking time to take instructions and  after speaking to the Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police.  At  her request, the matter was taken up at 1.00 p.m. and when it  was called out, on instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of police, who is present in court, it is stated that the said Deputy Commissioner has no objection to the petitioner being released, if so directed by this court.  

5. Once we have noted, in terms of our earlier order and even at today's hearing that he is not obliging this court by making any statement, then, he must admit that  he  has taken law in  his  hands  and  he  would voluntarily proceed to release the petitioner's husband from custody. This was the expectation from this police officer and if he had apologised genuinely and bonafide  and sought time to release the  petitioner's husband, we would not have directed any action to be taken against him. However, he remains adamant and persists that only if this court says that the petitioner's husband should be released, he would have no objection to such release. He would bring now to the court, the proceedings before the Magistrate and the contents of the remand report,  which, according to

9

him, permit him to detain the petitioner's husband in custody till 23rd March, 2018.  

6. We do not think any assistance can be derived from the entries in the diary or the remand proceedings. We do not think that the order of the Magistrate remanding the petitioner's husband to police custody till 23rd March, 2018 can bind this court and if the true and correct facts had been brought to the notice of the concerned judicial officer, possibly, he would not have  passed the  order  on  the request  of this  police officer.  Therefore,  while  we direct,  after  holding  that the petitioner's husband was unlawfully detained, his release from the custody forthwith, we also direct the superior police officials, particularly the functionary in the Department of Home, Government of India to launch disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner and her husband may initiate or file civil suit and criminal prosecution  against this  police  officer for taking the law in  his hands. Such prosecution shall continue uninfluenced by any proceedings that may be initiated against the  petitioner's  husband for  having violated the law.”

7.  Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants have filed the

present appeal on two counts, as already indicated in

paragraph 3 above. The respondent, on the other hand, has

supported the decision of the High Court and submits that the

appeal is devoid of merit. It is also brought to our notice that

Rizwan  Alam  Siddique  has already  been released  after the

impugned judgment. In response to this submission, counsel

10

for the appellants would submit that the appellants are more

concerned about the scathing observations made by the High

Court against the  police officials and  would be  more than

content if liberty is granted to the police to proceed against the

said Rizwan Alam Siddique in accordance with law.  

8. We have heard Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao

Katneshwarkar, learned  counsel for the  appellants  and Mr.

C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondent.

9. The question as to 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 the offence under investigation,

this issue has been considered in the case of Saurabh Kumar

through his father Vs. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., 1  and

Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.2   It

is no more res integra. In the present case, admittedly, when

the writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was

1  (2014) 13 SCC 436 2  (2013) 1 SCC 314

11

filed by the respondent on 18th/19th March, 2018 and decided

by the High Court on 21st March, 2018 her husband Rizwan

Alam Siddique  was in  police  custody pursuant to  an order

passed by the Magistrate granting his police custody in

connection with FIR No.I­31 vide order dated 17th March, 2018

and which police remand was to enure till 23rd March, 2018.

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.  

10. Reverting to the prayer for expunging the scathing

observations made  in the  impugned  judgment, in particular

paragraphs 4­6, reproduced earlier, it is submitted that the

said observations were wholly unwarranted as the concerned

Deputy  Commissioner of Police  who  was  present in  Court,

12

could not have given concession to release Rizwan Alam

Siddique in the teeth of a judicial order passed by the

Magistrate directing police remand  until 23rd  March, 2018.

Moreover, it is evident that the High Court proceeded to make

observations  without  giving  any opportunity,  whatsoever, to

the concerned police officials to explain the factual position on

affidavit. The writ petition was filed on 18th/19th March, 2018

and was moved on 20th  March, 2018 when the Court called

upon the Advocate for the appellants to produce the record on

the next day i.e. 21st March, 2018.  The impugned order came

to be passed on 21st March, 2018, notwithstanding the judicial

order of  remand operating  till  23rd  March, 2018.   The High

Court, in our opinion, 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. As aforesaid, the DCP has 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

13

to have made scathing observations even against the

Investigating Officer without giving him opportunity to offer his

explanation on affidavit.  

11. Suffice it to observe that 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 till 23rd

March, 2018 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. Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate3  deprecated passing of

disparaging and strong remarks by the High Court against the

Investigating Officer and about the investigation done by them.

Accordingly, we have no hesitation in expunging the

observations  made in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the impugned

judgment against the concerned police officials in the facts of

the present case.   

3  (2004) 5 SCC 729

14

12. As aforesaid, even though this appeal succeeds, since the

respondent’s husband Rizwan Alam Siddique has already been

released after the impugned judgment, the Investigating

Officer may proceed against him in connection with the stated

crime registered as FIR No.I­31/2018 strictly in  accordance

with law and not merely because the impugned order has been

set aside.   We may not be understood to have expressed any

opinion regarding the guilt  or  otherwise of the respondent’s

husband or correctness of the charges levelled against him.  

13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in the aforementioned

terms.   

.………………………….CJI. (Dipak Misra)

…………………………..….J.           (A.M. Khanwilkar)

…………………………..….J.        (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi; September 05, 2018.