While setting aside the order of the High Court, the court clarified that the respondent was entitled to pursue remedies available to him.
The Supreme Court on Monday held that a direction by the Bombay High Court asking the State to give 72 hours’ advance notice before effecting an arrest in respect of a cognizable offence, was incorrect in law [Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani v Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani].
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha set aside the High Court order which stated that the respondent should be given 72 hours’ notice in the event that the State intends to arrest him on the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) making out a cognizable offence.
“The direction issued by the High Court to the effect that 72 hours’ notice should be given to the first respondent in the event that the State finds it necessary to arrest him in connection with any complaint pertaining to a cognizable offence at the behest of the Joint Registrar (Audit) is manifestly incorrect in law," the top court held.
Therefore, this direction was vacated. However, the court clarified that the respondent was entitled to pursue remedies available to him if he is aggrieved by action taken against him.
Senior Advocate R Basant and advocates Naresh Shamnani, Minal Chanchlani, and Prashant Shrikant Kenjale appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu and advocates Deepak Nargolkar, Soumik Ghosal, Gaurav Singh, Shantanu Phanse, Shivali chaudhary, Hitesh Singh, Gursimar Singh, Aniruddha Joshi, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, and Kirti Dadheech represented the respondents.