The Supreme Court directed that the petitioner, if not required in the other case, be released today itself and therefore the compliance be reported without fail within the day.
The Supreme Court Monday termed it "surprising" and "strange" that the police had obtained a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against a person who was later sent to custody in reference to an alleged cheating case in Maharashtra despite specific interim order of the highest court that he shall not be arrested.
A vacation bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari observed that the highest court had on May 7 last year issued notice on a plea filed by the person and had said that within the meantime, he shall not be arrested in reference to the FIR registered at Latur in Maharashtra.
The Supreme Court directed that the petitioner, if not required in the other case, be released today itself and also the compliance be reported without fail within the day. "....it is rather intriguing to note that despite specific interim order of this court that the petitioner shall not be arrested in reference to the FIR... the prosecution obtained non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and when he appeared before the court, the judicial magistrate firstclass....by his order dated quarter day, 2022, observed that interim protection from arrest came to an end after six weeks from the order of this court," the bench said in its order.
The top court was hearing an application filed by the petitioner citing his arrest and seeking orders for his release.
The bench noted that the amount of six weeks seems to own been "borrowed" concerning the returnable date of the notice issued by the Supreme Court in its May 7 last year order.
"If, what has been observed by the magistrate within the order dated Midsummer's Day, 2022, is that the only reason for the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the true of the prosecuting agency and also the understanding of the magistrate about the operation of the order of this court become the matters of significant concern," the bench said.
"However, at present, we aren't making the other comment within the matter and grant counsel for the state a while to file a response to the current application," it said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 7.
The bench also said that its order be communicated by mail to the magistrate and its copy be supplied to the counsel for the state for appropriate instructions immediately.
During the hearing, the bench expressed its displeasure on how the prosecuting agency obtained the NBW and the way the magistrate passed the order.
"It crosses the bounds of even surprising and shocking also," the bench orally observed, adding, "We should educate our magistrate also." "It also questions your authentic also. How does one obtain a non-bailable warrant?" the bench told the lawyer appearing for the state.
The top court observed that the detention of the petitioner is directly contrary to and in defiance of the highest court's order.
"I will convey your lordship's displeasure," the state's counsel said.
The bench observed, "This are some things quite strange".
The petitioner had last year filed a plea within the Supreme Court against an order gone by the Bombay supreme court rejecting his petition seeking anticipatory bail in an exceedingly case registered for the alleged offences, including cheating, under the Indian legal code.
On May 7 last year, the highest court, while hearing his plea, passed an order which said: "Issue notice, returnable in six weeks. Petitioner is at liberty to serve the standing counsel for the state of Maharashtra. within the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in reference to FIR..."