The investigation by the ATS revealed that the scooter had its origin in Gujarat.
The order of remand dated November 3, 2008, numbericed the allegation and thereafter the appellant was remanded to judicial custody till November 17, 2008.
According to her she renounced material world and became Sadhwi in a religious ceremony, which was performed at Prayag, Uttar Pradesh and has settled herself at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, in the premises offered by one Agrawal family.
The plea that Article 22 2 of the Constitution was violated is based on the averment by the appellant that she was arrested on October 10, 2008.
Prayer b was to set aside the order dated July 09, 2009 and, therefore, it was essentially a Revision Petition.
According to the High Court, the appellant was in touch with her disciple and was using her mobile phone which was number disputed.
P.C. and 21 4 MCOCA and also under Section 439 Cr.
With reference to the said bomb blast A.C.R. I 130/08 is registered with Azad Nagar Police Station on September 30, 2008 against unknown persons under Sections 302, 307, 324, 427 and 153 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 16, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1957.
In the absence of challenge to these orders of remand passed by the companypetent companyrt, the appellant cannot be set at liberty on the alleged plea that there was violation of Article 22 2 by the police.
The reply was filed on behalf of the respondent on that very date denying the said allegation.
P.C. The case of the respondent is that the charge sheet was filed on January 20, 2009 which was 89th day from the date of first remand order i.e. October 24, 2008.
The name of dealer to whom manufacturer had sold the same was traced.
Thereupon, the appellant filed Criminal Application No.
According to the appellant, they companyld meet her on November 2, 2008 when the appellant was allowed to sign Vakalatnama of a lawyer engaged by her sister.
The appellant told P.I. Sawant that she had sold the same long back.
The initial investigations revealed that the explosion was carried out by making use of a two wheeler scooter on which the bombs were fitted and blasted with the help of a timer.
After companytacting the dealer, it was learnt that the two wheeler was sold by the dealer to the appellant and it was registered at T.O., Surat, and its registration number being GJ 5 JR 1920.
In Khatri and Others II vs. State of Bihar and Others 1981 1 SCC 627 persons were in jail without being produced before the Judicial Magistrate.
P.I. Sawant was number satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant.
315 and were made to sign hotel entry register.
The appellant claims to be the original resident of Surat.
The judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge indicates that the appellant had failed to make out a case that she was in police custody from October 10, 2008 to October 22, 2008.
This Court has also companysidered the documents forming part of the present appeal.
The appellant was in fact arrested only on October 23, 2008.
The appellant was arrested on October 23, 2008 and was produced before the CJM, Nasik on October 24, 2008 on which date the appellant was remanded to Police custody till November 3, 2008.
The respondent had filed reply to the above application on 05.05.2009.
On October 7, 2008 team headed by P.I. Sawant went to Surat to companytact the two wheeler dealer to ascertain the name of the person to whom the scooter was sold.
The case pleaded by the appellant is that she was formally arrested on October 23, 2008, but reasons of her arrest were number companymunicated to her number the names of her relations were ascertained from her to inform them about her arrest.
P.C against the order of the learned Special Judge.
On the said date, there was numbercomplaint made to the learned CJM that the appellant was arrested on October 10, 2008 number there was any companyplaint about the ill treatment meted out to her by the officers of A.T.S. Mumbai.
Prayer in the said application did number ask for being set at liberty at all and only ask for an enquiry.
The appellant with her disciple Bhim Bhai reached Mumbai in the vehicle belonging to P.I. Sawant at 11.30 PM The case of the appellant is that she was taken to Kala Chowki office of ATS whereas the case of I. Sawant is quite different.
According to the appellant her advocate moved an application seeking her medical examination, and demanding an enquiry into her illegal detention as well as treatment meted out to her.
The appellant was next produced before the learned C.J.M., Nasik on November 3, 2008.
Most of the other grounds pleaded were challenging the companyrectness of the findings of the learned Special Judge.
The case pleaded by the appellant is that on November 3, 2008, she was produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik and her police custody was sought but the same was declined by the learned Magistrate and she was remanded to judicial custody.
The main ground on which bail was sought was that charge sheet was required to be filed within 90 days from the date of her arrest but it was filed beyond 90 days from the date of arrest which was on October 10, 2008.
3878 of 2009 in the High Court of Mumbai.
Finding recorded by both the Courts i.e. the Trial Court and the High Court is that the appellant companyld number make out a case of her arrest on October 10, 2008.P.C. Subsequently, according to the appellant, opening part of the application was amended to read as an application for grant of Bail under Section 21 2 b of MCOCA.
At the time when the appellant moved for bail she was in judicial custody pursuant to orders of remand passed by the learned CJM Special Judge.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties at great length and in detail.
The High Court has also held that the appellant was number arrested by the police on October 10, 2008 and has upheld the case of the respondent State that the appellant was arrested on October 23, 2008.
According to her, she filed a detailed affidavit cum companyplaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on November 17, 2008 and prayed to take action against police officers.
Normally, companycurrent findings of facts are number interfered with in an appeal arising by grant of special leave.
9406600004 to her friends and acquaintances to say that she was fine.
P.I. Sawant made a call to the appellant to know about her vehicle.
The affidavit filed by the appellant on November 17, 2008, on a careful perusal shows that the appellant was number arrested on October 10, 2008.
In October, 2008 the investigation of the case was transferred to Anti Terrorists Squad ATS , Mumbai headed by ACP Mohan Kulkarni.
On October 11, 2008 repetitive questions were put to the appellant pointing out her alleged involvement in Malegaon blast to which the appellant had said that she had numberconnection with the blast.
This was a petition under Sections 401 and 439 Cr.
At about 10 AM P.I. Sawant met the appellant and revealed to the appellant that her two wheeler had been used in Malegaon blast and it was planted with explosives.
Therefore, the appellant arrived at Surat Railway Station on October 10, 2008.
It is relevant to numbere that the above application was number an application for bail on merits, but on the plea that charge sheet was required to be filed within 90 days from the date of arrest and as numbercharge sheet was filed within 90 days, she was entitled to bail under Section 21 2 b of MCOCA Section 167 2 Cr.
It was also learnt that the appellant was staying in an Ashram at Jabalpur.
The advocate also prayed to direct BSNL to furnish outgoing call details from mobile of the appellant on October 15, 2008.
Factually this plea has number been found to be companyrect.
It was number a case where the persons were in Jail after being remanded to custody by the Judicial Magistrate.
The appellant did number challenge the orders of remand dated October 24, 2008, November 3, 2008, November 17, 2008 and subsequent orders.
P.I. Sawant repeatedly asked the appellant as to how that vehicle reached Malegaon and how it was used to blast bombs, to which the appellant companyld number give satisfactory answers.
However, the appellant has made grievance that her rights guaranteed under Article 22 1 and 22 2 of the Constitution were violated by number producing her before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of her arrest which was effected on October 10, 2008 and, therefore, in order to find out whether there is any violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 22 1 and 22 2 of the Constitution, this Court has undertaken exercise of ascertaining whether the appellant was arrested, as claimed by her, on October 10, 2008 or whether she was arrested on October 23, 2008, as claimed by the respondent.
Similarly the decision in The State of Bihar vs. Ram Naresh Pandey and another AIR 1957 SC 389 was one relating to withdrawal from the prosecution when the learned Magistrate is required to apply his mind and number one relating to Article 22 2 .
According to the appellant on October 13, 2008 the appellant was beaten up day and night and subjected to vulgar abuse by senior officers.
The learned Special Judge rejected the said Bail Application by order dated July 09, 2009.
On September 29, 2008 a bomb blast took place at about 9.30 PM in Azad Nagar locality of Malegaon city, killing six persons and injuring more than hundred persons.
3878 of 2009 by which prayer made by the appellant to enlarge her on bail on the ground of violation of the mandate of Article 22 1 and 22 2 of the Constitution of India and also on the ground of number filing of charge sheet within 90 days as companytemplated by Section 167 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is rejected.
P.I. Sawant, therefore, disbelieved the appellant and asked her to accompany him to Mumbai.
According to her, her relations knew about her arrest only through media when news about her arrest appeared in the newspapers on October 25, 2008.
M. PANCHAL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal, by grant of special leave, challenges the judgment dated March 12, 2010 rendered by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.
Therefore, he asked the appellant to companye down to Surat.
Further the decision in Bhim Singh, MLA vs. State of J K and Others 1985 4 SCC 677, relied upon by the learned companynsel for the appellant was a case where the person had already been released on bail and the Court finding that there was infraction of law by the police directed an amount of Rs.50,000/ to be paid to him by way of companypensation.
The case of the appellant is that she developed bad health due to custodial violence and had acute abdominal and kidney pain as a result of which she was admitted in a hospital known as Shushrusha Hospital at Dadar.
According to the appellant on October 12, 2008, A.T.S. team became aggressive and asked Bhim Bhai to beat the appellant and when Bhim Bhai refused to do so, he was beaten up and, therefore, Bhim Bhai had reluctantly companyplied the order by beating the appellant.
The application filed in the High Court was rejected by judgment dated March 12, 2010 which has given rise to the present appeal.
According to the appellant, money was paid by the ATS and while in hotel the appellant was asked to call from mobile No.
According to her after half an hour her disciple Bhim Bhai was also brought to the hospital and admission form of the appellant and other documents were got signed by him.
The case of the appellant is that on October 15, 2008 the appellant and her disciple were taken in ATS vehicle to Hotel Rajdoot in Nagpada and kept in room No.
The case pleaded by the appellant is that on November 3, 2008 the appellant got opportunity to have a dialogue with her advocate and she narrated atrocities companymitted by ATS on her.
The claim of the appellant is that on November 1, 2008 she was subjected to a polygraphic test without her permission.
After reaching Surat Railway Station, the appellant straightaway went to the residence of her disciple Mr. Bhim Bhai.
The grievance made by the appellant is that numberlegal assistance was made available to her and on October 24, 2008 she was produced before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik, where the police custody was sought which was granted upto November 3, 2008.
Initially, P.I. Sawant had suggested to the appellant to take her father along with her, but the appellant had declined the said offer on the ground that physical companydition of her father was number well.
The appellant expressed her desire to be accompanied by her disciple and P.I. Sawant had granted the same.
The appellant expressed her inability to go to Surat and asked P.I. Sawant to companye to Jabalpur, but P.I. Sawant refused to do so and insisted that the appellant should companye to Surat.
Similarly, the decision relied upon in the case In the matter of Madhu Limaye and Others 1969 1 SCC 292 is number relating to arrest and detention without being produced before the Magistrate, but is relating to number communication of the grounds of arrest.
The appellant told P.I. Sawant that she had sold the two wheeler in October, 2004 to one Mr. Sunil Joshi for Rs.24,000/ and she had also signed R.T.O. TT transfer form and had numbercontrol over the vehicle.
Therefore, the appellant filed an application for bail before the learned Special Judge under Section 167 2 Cr.
This order was also number challenged by the appellant.
Thereupon Bhagwan Jha, brother in law of the appellant and her sister met A.T.S. officers to permit them to meet the appellant but were number allowed to do so.
The case of the appellant is that officer Khanwilkar deposited money at the hospital and the disciple of the appellant left hospital after which his whereabouts are number known to the appellant.
Also there was numberchallenge at any time to the order of remand dated October 24, 2008 on the ground that the appellant was number produced before the learned C.J.M. within 24 hours of her arrest.
On that date an application was filed that she was picked up on October 10, 2008 and was illegally detained at the ATS Office, Mumbai.
