Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court last week drew a distinction between police “custody” and a formal “arrest”, dismissing a businessman’s plea that his fundamental rights were violated because he was allegedly detained for more than 24 hours before being produced in court.A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta held that evidence did not establish the Itwari resident was arrested when police took him from his home on March 31. The court found he was initially brought to the police station for inquiry and was formally arrested the same day, after investigators allegedly found links between him and a co-accused.The petitioner challenged his arrest, subsequent remand and detention in a crime registered at Lakadganj police station under MCOCA.Referring to Supreme Court precedent and a full bench ruling of Madras High Court, the high court bench observed: “in every arrest, there is custody but not vice versa.” It said custody may amount to arrest in some circumstances, but the two concepts cannot be treated as synonymous in every case.The case arose from an investigation in which police allegedly seized firearms, live cartridges, magazines, a sword and narcotic drugs from the residence of the co-accused. Police examined the co-accused’s mobile phone and allegedly found WhatsApp messages indicating cash transactions running into lakhs of rupees with the petitioner.The petitioner relied on CCTV footage to contend his liberty had been curtailed from that morning and he was not produced in court within the constitutionally prescribed 24-hour period.The prosecution, led by senior counsel and govt pleader Deven Chauhan, argued that being taken into custody for inquiry did not automatically amount to an arrest. He maintained the man’s formal arrest took place only after a preliminary inquiry revealed the petitioner’s alleged involvement.The judges examined CCTV footage and found it did not show the use of force or any restriction on the 38-year-old accused’s movements. Instead, they noted, it showed him accompanying police personnel while leaving his house.“As per station diary entries, the accused was produced in court at 5.15 p.m. the following day — within 24 hours of the formal arrest,” they held.The court noted that the grounds of arrest referred to the alleged monetary transactions with the co-accused, the need for further interrogation and the seriousness of the alleged offence.After examining CCTV footage, station diary entries, arrest record and applicable law, the bench concluded that the allegation of illegal detention was not substantiated.#Key takeaways:HC dismissed businessman’s plea alleging illegal detention.Held that police initially brought him in for inquiry and formally arrested him.CCTV footage did not establish that he was forcibly detained in the morning.Station diary entries supported the police version of events.He was produced before the court at 5.15 p.m. the next day, within 24 hours of formal arrest.The bench reiterated that “in every arrest, there is custody but not vice versa.”It found grounds of arrest were communicated and dismissed the petition
