Accused arrested with ₹2 crore worth of gold granted bail.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Nagpur, had claimed to have intercepted Dhairyasheel and Suresh at Nagpur Railway Station on 12/08/2026 and seized nine defaced gold pieces weighing 1,282.450 grams, with the gold valued at approximately ₹2 crores.

Based on their confessional statements, the DRI claimed to have gained knowledge that the said gold had been smuggled by Vinod Pawar and was of foreign origin. As such, Vinod Pawar came to be arrested on 15/08/2026 by the DRI. The DRI sought his police custody remand, which was granted until 17/08/2026.

On 17/08/2026, Adv. Surabhi Godbole Naidu, appearing on behalf of the accused, moved an application before the learned JMFC, Nagpur, contending that the arrest so effected was illegal and, as such, prayed for his release forthwith.

It was argued that the DRI had stated in the arrest memo that the accused was arrested at 12:00 noon on 15/08/2026, whereas the remand order of the Court specified that the accused was produced before the Court at 4:35 p.m. on 15/08/2026. Though the grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused in writing immediately after his arrest, the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to the relatives of the accused at least two hours prior to his production for remand before the Court.

Opposing the defence contention, the DRI contended that they had made a mobile call to the brother of the accused at about 12:30 p.m. and had forwarded the arrest memo to the brother of the accused at 2:51 p.m after his arrest on 15-08-2026 itself.

Countering the claims of the DRI, Adv. Surabhi Godbole Naidu argued that the claim of the DRI in no way satisfied the mandate of law as has been set forth by the Hon’ble Apex Court. By exercising its power under Article 141 of the Constitution, the Apex Court has laid down a mandatory requirement that the relatives of the accused must be supplied with the written grounds of arrest at least two hours prior to the accused being produced before the Court, which had not been complied with in the present case. The whatsapp message was not an approved mode of service and so also the said whatsapp was not sent with a clear gap of 2 hours from the time the accused was produced before the court.

It was further argued that, since the aspect of supplying written grounds of arrest to the accused as well as to his relatives touches upon the core of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, the same was required to be complied with in letter and spirit. The claim of the prosecution that it had sent a WhatsApp message and made a telephone call did not meet the requirements mandated by law and the dictum set forth by the Apex Court in several of its judgments.

As such, the learned JMFC Court No. 10, Shri S.K. Sonawane, proceeded to direct the release of the accused forthwith. However, before the accused could be released from jail, the DRI moved before the Sessions Judge and obtained an ex parte stay to the order of release of accused on account of his illegal arrest.

The said matter was heard at length, and the Sessions Judge Shri Mohtesim Badar, appreciated the arguments and propositions of law advanced by Adv. Surabhi Godbole Naidu and proceeded to uphold the order of release of the accused and dismissed the contentions raised by the DRI. Advocate Prakash Naidu, Surabhi Godbole Naidu, Mitesh Bais, Homesh Chauhan, Dhruv Sharma, Nupur Agrawal, Jagruti Patil, Ananaya Chandak represented the accused.

Source: Nagpur Today