High Court Direction for 72-Hour Notice Before Arrest Overruled

The Supreme Court found a direction by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, requiring 72 hours' notice before potential arrest in a cognizable offence complaint, to be legally incorrect. Citing precedent, the Court vacated the direction, allowing for immediate arrest without advance notice. The first respondent retained the right to seek legal remedies if aggrieved. The petition was disposed of, and pending applications were resolved as part of the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the direction for 72 hours' notice before arrest in a cognizable offence complaint.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of a direction given by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, where it was ordered that the first respondent should be provided with 72 hours' notice before any potential arrest in connection with a complaint related to a cognizable offence. The Court found this direction to be legally incorrect, citing the case of Union of India v Padam Narain Aggarwal & Others (2008) 13 SCC 305. The Court emphasized that such a directive should not have been issued by the High Court, leading to the conclusion that the direction for advance notice was improper in law.

The Supreme Court proceeded to vacate and set aside the direction requiring 72 hours' advance notice before the arrest of the first respondent in the event of a complaint concerning a cognizable offence. Additionally, the Court clarified that the first respondent retained the right to pursue legal remedies if he felt aggrieved by any actions taken against him. Consequently, the petition was disposed of by the Court, and any pending applications were also resolved as part of the judgment.

---