DILIP RAMDAS ADSULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:46106-DB

                                                                  CRI. WP 1338-23 .




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1338 OF 2023

                             DILIP RAMDAS ADSULE
                                    VERSUS
                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                           ….
          Mr. S. B. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner
          Ms. Uma S. Bhosale, A.P.P. for the Respondents-State
                                           ….


                                 CORAM       :   SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                 Date        :   01/10/2026



          ORDER :


          1.   Heard rival submissions.



          2.   The petitioner has sought a direction against respondent Nos.1

          and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to him for his alleged

          illegal detention from 15/08/2023 till 18/08/2023. The petitioner

          has also sought appropriate action against respondent No.2 and the

          Constable who produced the petitioner before this Court for non-

          compliance of the order.




                VS Maind/                                        Page|1
                                                            CRI. WP 1338-23 .




3.   The petitioner claims that he was convicted on 14/01/2016 by

the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Osmanabad, for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act (in short, ‘the N.I. Act’) and was sentenced to suffer simple

imprisonment for 15 days. The appeal preferred by the petitioner

against the said judgment and order was dismissed on 29/07/2022.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.86

of 2023 before this Court on 13/12/2022. On 18/07/2023, this

Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in the

aforesaid criminal revision application, pursuant to which the

petitioner was arrested on 31/07/2023 and produced before the

learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who remanded the petitioner

to judicial custody till 14/08/2023. However, on 14/08/2023,

respondent No.2 did not produce the petitioner before the Sessions

Court, Osmanabad and instead, the petitioner was directly produced

before this Court on 17/08/2023. On the same day, this Court

specifically directed the Constable to release the petitioner forthwith.

However, despite the said direction, the petitioner could not be

released by respondent No.2 and therefore, he had to appear before

the learned Sessions Judge and was thereafter released on

18/08/2023. Thus, the petitioner claims that he was illegally

detained from 15/08/2023 till 18/08/2023.


      VS Maind/                                            Page|2
                                                              CRI. WP 1338-23 .




4.      The learned APP, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply, strongly

resisted the petition and submitted that the concerned learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, had followed due process

after the petitioner was brought before him pursuant to the non-

bailable warrant issued by this Court. Moreover, the learned

Sessions Judge had also passed an order on 14/08/2023 observing

that the petitioner was not produced before him and directed that

he be produced before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2016 in

Criminal Application No.4243 of 2022, without fail, on 17/08/2023.

As such, the learned APP prayed for dismissal of the petition.



5.      Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted by the learned

Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Osmanabad, for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and was awarded 15

days'    simple     imprisonment   along   with   compensation/fine         of

Rs.85,000/-. It is not in dispute that his Appeal No.9 of 2016 was

dismissed on 29/07/2022 and thereafter, in the criminal revision

filed before this Court, his sentence was suspended. It is a matter of

record that on 18/07/2023, this Court had issued a non-bailable

warrant against the petitioner for his non-appearance, pursuant to

which he was arrested on 31/07/2023. He was duly produced

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, on


        VS Maind/                                           Page|3
                                                              CRI. WP 1338-23 .




31/07/2023,       who     remanded   him    to   judicial   custody       till

14/08/2023. However, it appears that the petitioner was not

produced before the concerned Sessions Judge on 14/08/2023.

Instead, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad,

directed, by order dated 14/08/2023, that the petitioner be

produced before this Court, without fail, on 17/08/2023.



6.   On 17/08/2023, when the petitioner was produced before this

Court, this Court observed that the petitioner had already

undergone the sentence imposed upon him in connection with the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and therefore,

the order suspending the sentence of imprisonment passed in

Criminal    Application    No.4243   of   2022   in   Criminal   Revision

Application No.86 of 2023 was recalled. This Court also observed

that the petitioner ought to have been released forthwith.



7.   It is to be noted that the petitioner is claiming his alleged

illegal detention mainly on the basis of the aforesaid observation of

this Court. However, on going through the complete order dated

17/08/2023 passed by this Court, it appears that though this Court

had expressed the opinion that the petitioner was to be released

forthwith, but it was further observed that, since the petitioner had


      VS Maind/                                             Page|4
                                                            CRI. WP 1338-23 .




not furnished the bail bonds, he should furnish a surety of

Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, for securing his

presence. As such, in terms of the order passed by this Court, the

petitioner was produced before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Osmanabad, on the next day, i.e. 18/08/2023, where he was

released on bail. Thus, it appears that respondent No.2, as well as

the Constable who produced the petitioner before the various

Courts, were following the directions issued by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, as well as this Court. In

fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, had

directed that the petitioner/accused be produced before this Court

on 17/08/2023, even though the petitioner/accused had not been

produced before him upon expiry of the period of judicial custody on

14/08/2023.



8.   Thus, it clearly appears that the petitioner/accused remained

in custody pursuant to the orders of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Osmanabad, till 17/08/2023 and thereafter remained in

custody pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17/08/2023

till 18/08/2023. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that

the respondents had, in fact, illegally detained the petitioner for the


      VS Maind/                                           Page|5
                                                      CRI. WP 1338-23 .




period from 15/08/2023 till 18/08/2023. As such, no substance is

found in the present petition. The petition, therefore, stands

dismissed.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]               [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
            JUDGE                           JUDGE




      VS Maind/                                     Page|6