Bombay High Court Draws Line Between ‘Custody’ and ‘Arrest’ in Detention Case The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently clarified the legal distinction between police “custody” and a formal “arrest” in a case involving a businessman who alleged his fundamental rights were violated due to prolonged detention. The court dismissed his plea, ruling that evidence did not support the claim he was unlawfully detained for over 24 hours before appearing in court. A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta emphasized that while custody may sometimes equate to arrest, the two concepts are not interchangeable in all circumstances. The case centered on an investigation into alleged possession of firearms, live ammunition, narcotics, and other items by a co-accused, with the petitioner challenging his detention and subsequent remand. The petitioner, an Itwari resident, argued that he was not formally arrested when police took him from his home on March 31, 2026, and that his liberty was curtailed without proper legal procedures. He relied on CCTV footage to assert that he was not produced in court within the constitutionally mandated 24-hour window. However, the court examined the footage and found it did not show any use of force or restrictions on his movements. Instead, the footage depicted him voluntarily accompanying police personnel as they left his residence. The prosecution, represented by senior counsel Deven Chauhan, contended that the petitioner was initially brought in for an inquiry and formally arrested only after investigators uncovered links between him and the co-accused. The court’s analysis of the evidence included station diary entries, arrest records, and legal precedents. It noted that the accused was produced before the court at 5:15 p.m.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #deven_chauhan #urmila_joshi_phalke #nivedita_mehta
Maharashtra Govt Claims 99% of Shalarth Scam Appointments Are Suspicious, Submits Affidavit to High Court The Maharashtra government has informed the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court that over 99% of appointments linked to the alleged Shalarth ID scam are under suspicion. According to an affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Education, only five teachers’ records were found valid, while documents for 632 teachers and non-teaching staff remain untraceable. The submission, made through senior counsel Deven Chauhan and additional pleader Sangita Jachak, raised serious concerns about the legitimacy of these appointments. The matter was heard by a division bench of Justices Mukulika Jawalkar and Nandesh Deshpande. The court is currently dealing with approximately 84 petitions filed by over 800 teachers demanding the release of stalled salaries. The bench adjourned the case to April 2 and directed the state to submit a detailed chart of show-cause notices issued to those allegedly involved in the Shalarth ID irregularities. The government argued that the appointments under investigation were not made in accordance with statutory procedures, with mandatory service rules and government resolutions not followed. It further stated that Shalarth IDs generated from these appointments are “invalid,” citing the lack of legal basis for their creation. The affidavit detailed findings of the inquiry, which revealed widespread irregularities in the generation of Shalarth IDs. These included approvals issued without official sanctions or records, often created in collusion at institutional levels to bypass established procedures. The state emphasized that the inquiry is ongoing and warned that the number of suspect appointments could exceed 632.#bombay_high_court #maharashtra_govt #deven_chauhan #sangita_jachak #shalarth_id_scam
