Section 45 of the CrPC: The protection under Section 45 of the CrPC applies only when the public officer is acting in his official capacity. In this case, the Petitioner’s actions (planting explosives and conspiring to murder) were not part of his official duties, and thus, no consent was required for his arrest. (Para 15)

Remand under NIA Act: The Special Judge under the NIA Act has exclusive jurisdiction to grant remand for offences listed in the NIA Act’s Schedule, including the Explosive Substances Act. (Para 18-20)

Remand under Section 167 and 309 of the CrPC: Once the charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated time, the accused cannot claim default bail, even if cognizance is not taken immediately. The remand under Section 309 of the CrPC does not require a written and signed warrant, as the word “may” in the section indicates discretion. (Para 21-23 : validity of remand orders under Sections 167 and 309, Para 28-31 : requirement of a written and signed warrant under Section 309 of the CrPC.)

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that: The arrest of the Petitioner was legal, as he was not acting in his official capacity when he committed the alleged offences, and thus, Section 45 of the CrPC did not apply. The remand orders passed by the Special Judge under the NIA Act were valid, and the detention between 03.09.2021 and 07.09.2021 was legal, as the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated time. The cognizance taken on 07.09.2021 was valid, as the Judge only needed to review the summary of the charges. The remand under Section 309 of the CrPC did not require a written and signed warrant, as the word “may” in the section indicates discretion.

Major Acts:

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 45, 167, 309

2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Sections 16, 18

3. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) – Sections 2(b), 13(1), 16

4. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 286, 465, 473, 506(2), 120B, 302, 201, 34

Subjects:
Habeas Corpus, Illegal Detention, Remand, Consent for Arrest, UAPA, NIA Act, Charge-sheet, Cognizance, Judicial Custody, Police Custody, Explosive Substances Act

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The Petitioner, Sachin Hindurao Waze, filed a writ petition for habeas corpus, alleging illegal detention and seeking immediate release. The Petitioner was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with three interconnected incidents involving the theft of a vehicle, planting of explosives, and the murder of Mansukh Hiren.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?: The Petitioner sought release on the grounds that his arrest and subsequent detention were illegal, citing violations of Section 45 of the CrPC (consent for arrest) and improper remand procedures under Sections 167 and 309 of the CrPC.

3. Reason for Filing the Case: The Petitioner claimed that his arrest was illegal as the NIA did not obtain the State Government’s consent under Section 45 of the CrPC, and that his remand orders were invalid, especially between 03.09.2021 and 07.09.2021, when no valid remand order was passed.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?: The Special Judge had rejected the Petitioner’s application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, and the Petitioner did not challenge that order, which attained finality.

Issues:

1. Whether the arrest of the Petitioner without the State Government’s consent under Section 45 of the CrPC was illegal?

2. Whether the remand orders passed by the Special Judge under the NIA Act were valid, especially between 03.09.2021 and 07.09.2021?

3. Whether the cognizance taken by the Special Judge on 07.09.2021 was valid, given the voluminous charge-sheet?

4. Whether the remand orders under Section 309 of the CrPC required a written and signed warrant by the Presiding Judge?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioner’s Arguments:
   a. The arrest was illegal as the NIA did not obtain the State Government’s consent under Section 45 of the CrPC, as the Petitioner was acting in his official capacity as an Investigating Officer.
   b. The first remand should have been obtained from a Magistrate, not the Special Judge.
   c. The remand under Section 167 of the CrPC ended on 03.09.2021, and no valid remand order under Section 309 was passed until 07.09.2021, making the detention illegal.
   d. The cognizance taken on 07.09.2021 was mechanical, as the charge-sheet was voluminous and the Judge could not have applied his mind properly.
   e. The remand under Section 309 of the CrPC required a written and signed warrant, which was not issued.

2. Respondent’s Arguments:
   a. The Petitioner’s arrest was legal as he was not acting in his official capacity when he committed the alleged offences, and thus, Section 45 of the CrPC did not apply.
   b. The Special Judge under the NIA Act had exclusive jurisdiction to grant remand, as the offences fell under the Explosive Substances Act, which is listed in the NIA Act’s Schedule.
   c. The remand under Section 167 of the CrPC was validly extended, and the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated time, making the detention legal.
   d. The cognizance taken on 07.09.2021 was valid, as the Judge only needed to review the summary of the charges, not the entire charge-sheet.
   e. The requirement for a written and signed warrant under Section 309 of the CrPC was not mandatory, as the word “may” in the section indicates discretion.