Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Abhay A Joglekar rejected the Criminal Revision Applications filed by the Crime Branch, Nagpur and Anuradha Wd/o Penmacha Verma, which were directed against the order of release of Sharad Maind, Chairman Pusad Urban Co-Operative Bank, Nagpur, passed by Ms Aarti K Bankar, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, whereby the JMFC Court had proceeded to observe that the prosecution agency had deviated from the mandate of Article 22(1) of The Constitution Of India and also the provisions of the BNSS Act by firstly not producing the accused before the Court within 24 Hours and secondly for not having furnished him and his relatives the written grounds of arrest and reasons of arrest.
Adocate Prakash Naidu appearing for Sharad Maind pointed out to the court that the Crime Department had on 17.09.2025 registered an FIR with the Sadar Police Station on the basis of report lodged by the widow of Penmacha Verma by contending that the Chairman of Pusad Urban Bank alongwith other persons were responsible for the act of abatement of suicide as was committed by her husband and as such the Crime Branch personnels claim to have formally taken the accused Sharad Maind in custody at Pusad at about 2:32PM on 17.09.2025, but he was officially placed under arrest vide Arrest Memo on 18.09.2025 at 02:04AM.
Gold Rate
21 Oct 2025
Likewise, the intimation of his arrest is alleged to have been given to one Amol which again was contrary to the Station Diary Entries dated 17.09.2025 and 18.09.2025. So also, the Crime Branch wilfully deviated from the mandated aspect of not furnishing the written grounds of arrest to the said Sharad Maind as well as his blood relatives and produced him before the JMFC Court at 3:30PM on 18.09.2025, which was after a period of 24 hours from the time at which he was formally placed under arrest.
Since the arrest was vitiated and illegal, the JMFC Court, Nagpur Aarti Bankar had proceeded to direct the release of the accused Sharad forthwith. Immediately thereafter after the release of Sharad Maind in the crime registered at Sadar Police Station, the Ajni Police had proceeded to arrest him in a different crime and Sharad was granted bail in that offence as well.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the Crime Branch and Anuradha Penmacha Verma had filed 2 separate Criminal Revision Applications demanding for Police Custody Remand and for setting aside the order impugned. It was contended on behalf of the revision petitioners that the trial courts order suffered on account of the fact that the trial court had ordered Sharad Maind to be taken in Magisterial Custody and thereafter directed his release on account of illegal arrest and having taken him in Judicial custody, the order of release was illegal. Rebutting the said contentions, Adv Naidu pointed out to the court that, since the grounds of arrest, intimation of arrest were never supplied to the accused, the counsel for the accused was not in a position to invoke the aspects of merits of the case, since the accused was deprived of his fundamental rights of not being furnished his rights to defend and hence, it was only after the records of the case were perused in the court, the illegalities committed by the prosecution could be analysed and that the same were pointed out and taken cognizance of by the Court.
Likewise, remand order did not curtail the indefeasible rights of the accused against the illegal arrest and. The Sessions Court after hearing the parties observed that the arrest was not in confirmation with the laws as had been laid down and was also in violation of the Constitutional rights of the accused and the order passed by the JMFC Court on that count did not warrant any interference and proceeded to reject both the revision applications.
Advocate Prakash Naidu, Mitesh Bais, Homesh Chauhan, Surabhi (Naidu) Godbole and Dhruv Sharma represented the accused.
