The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay Excessive Court docket has directed the Maharashtra authorities to pay Rs. 2 Lakh as compensation to a 26-year-old man who was arrested with out being knowledgeable of the grounds of arrest or being issued a correct discover.
A Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode reiterated the well-settled precept that Excessive Courts below Article 226 of the Structure have jurisdiction to grant financial compensation to a sufferer whose basic rights below Article 21 have been violated by State officers.
The Court docket relied on the Supreme Court docket’s judgement in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022), and noticed that whereas making arrests for cognizable offences punishable with a jail-term not exceeding seven years below Part 41 of the Code of Legal Process (CrPC), a police officer is “duty-bound” to document causes in writing for making or not making an arrest.
“Part 41 offers with the process when police might arrest with out warrant. Part 41-A offers with discover of look earlier than the Police Officer. Right here, within the current case, neither discover is issued below Part 41 or 41-A to the petitioner,” the Court docket mentioned.
The Bench additional famous that the final diary entry neither disclose the grounds of arrest being communicated to the petitioner nor the receipt of “secret data”, primarily based on which the police officers raided the petitioner’s lodge and detained him over alleged business misuse of home gasoline cylinder below Important Commodities Act.
“Right here, within the current case, neither common diary entry nor arrest panchanama is positioned on document to point out that any grounds of arrest had been communicated to the petitioner earlier than he was taken into custody and delivered to the police station. There is no such thing as a entry as to receipt of the key data additionally,” the Court docket mentioned.
The Court docket additionally took into consideration that the police officers made the false assertion earlier than the Excessive Court docket, denying that they’d seized the petitioner’s cell phone. Nevertheless, a subsequent departmental inquiry established that the officers had retained the cellphone with out drawing a seizure panchanama.
“As already noticed, throughout the departmental enquiry the cost towards respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the extent that they’ve saved the mobile-cell of the petitioner with out drawing seizure panchanama is established and, due to this fact, they had been punished. Increment of respondent No.3 was withheld for one yr, whereas deduction of Rs.1500/- was effected from month-to-month pension of respondent No.4 for 2 years,” the Court docket mentioned.
The Bench added, “The observations of the Superintendent of Police, whereas conducting the enquiry, are that respondent No.4 has not noticed pointers issued and admittedly has not communicated grounds of arrest to the petitioner, which is clearly violation of his private liberty below Article 21 of the Structure of India.”
Invoking the motto of Maharashtra State Police “Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya”, which implies to guard good and to punish evil, the Court docket mentioned that the police have an obligation not merely to the person accused earlier than them, but in addition to the State and to the neighborhood at massive.
“Within the current case, respondent Nos.3 and 4 who’re the Police Officers whose major duty was to guard the and uphold the regulation. Nevertheless, not solely they’ve violated the regulation but in addition violated pointers issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court docket as to the arrest,” the Court docket mentioned.
The Court docket relied on the Apex Court docket’s judgements in Neelabati Behera (Smt) vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (1993) and Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar and one other (1983), which dominated that the Supreme Court docket and the Excessive Courts have jurisdiction to grant compensation to an individual whose basic rights below Article 21 have been violated.
Discovering the police officers to be responsible of violating basic rights of the petitioner and committing an “error” in arresting him with out following due technique of regulation, the Court docket directed the state to pay compensation of Rupees two lakh to the petitioner inside eight weeks.
Case: Vaibhav vs State of Maharashtra & others
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.389 OF 2024
