Bombay High Court: Dismissed Bookie Anil Jaisinghani’s Plea Alleging Illegal Arrest; Amruta Fadnavis Complaint

The Bombay High Court in the case observed and has dismissed the plea filed by bookie Anil Jaisinghani’s, wherein alleging illegal arrest in the case filed by deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis’s wife – Amruta Fadnavis. The bench comprising of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice PK Naik was hearing the present plea and passed the order.
It has been alleged by Fadnavis that Aniksha Jaisinghani, the daughter of Anil Jaisinghani’s attempted to bribe her with Rs 1 Crore for seeking her intervention in a criminal case which involves her father. Further, Anil Jaisinghani’s also allegedly tried to extort Rs 10 Crores from her.
Further, Anil Jaisinghani was being arrested from Gujarat along with his cousin Nirmal Jaisinghani and he was remanded to police custody till 27.03.2023.
It has been stated in the plea filed that they were being arrested or were taken into custody on March 19, 11:45 PM at Godhra. Thus, they were also produced before the magistrate on March 21.
As per the petition, there being deliberate delay in producing the petitioners before the magistrate and the police officials did not comply with mandatory provisions as stated Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Adding to it, the plea stated that the petitioners were not produced before the Magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest as mandated by section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners were being represented by Mrigendra Singh. It has also been stated by Mrigendra Singh that both the petitioners were produced before the magistrate after 36 hours of their arrest.
Therefore, it has also been stated in the plea that the duo alleged that Fadnavis’ FIR is concocted to falsely implicate Anil Jaisinghani. Thus, the said police did not comply with section 41 and section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in making arrest.
Further, the Advocate General Birendra Saraf gave a detailed chart wherein justifying his arrest. He stated that the duo could only be produced before a magistrate who had the jurisdiction to hear the matter and not before any Magistrate. Thus, he also stated that the arrest made was not illegal.