Home > 498A, Contempt > Bombay HC:- Fines State for Illegal Arrest of Husband and his parents (senior Citizens)

Bombay HC:- Fines State for Illegal Arrest of Husband and his parents (senior Citizens)

In one more glaring case of gross violation of Article 21  of the Constitution of India and that also at the hands of the Police machinery which is supposed to be protector of common man. The victims are the second and third Petitioners who are senior citizens. High Court at Bombay swung in action to punish the gross violators (Police). Pls go through the complete Judgement below:-

ash 1 wp-856.12



1. Niraj Ramesh Jariwala, )


Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,  )


2. Ramesh Vitthaldas Jariwala, )


Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired. )


3. Hansa Ramesh Jariwala,  )


Age : 62 years, Occ: Household, )


All residing at Tirupati Supreme )


Enclave, K/29, Jalidar Nagar,  )


Paithan Road,  Aurangabad. )


4. Ravindra Dagadu Gaikwad, )


Age : 38 years, Occ: Chairman of  )


Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi  )


Engineering College, Solapur, )


Residing at 65, Antroli Nagar­1,  )


Solapur. )


5. Anamika Ravindra Gaikwad, )


Age : 32 years, Occ: Director of  )


Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi  )


Engineering College, Solapur. )


Residing at 65, Antroli Nagar­1, )


Solapur. ).. Petitioners


( Orig. Accused )




1. Mahadeo Pandurang Nikam, )


Police Sub­Inspector, )


Navghar Police Station, Mumbai )


2. The Senior Inspector of Police, )


Navghar Police Station, Mumbai. )


3. Sheetal Niraj Jariwala,  )


Age : Adult, Occ: Household, )


Residing at Plot No.1001,  )


Manisha Tower, Tata Colony,  )ash 2 wp-856.12


Navghar Road, Mulund (East), )


Mumbai – 400 081. )


4. The Commissioner of Police, )


For Greater Bombay, at Bombay. )


5. The State of Maharashtra, )


( Notice to be served upon A.P.P., )


High Court, A.S., Mumbai.) ).. Respondents


( Respondent No.3/





Shri Sachin Deokar i/by Shri V.V. Purwant for the Petitioners.


Shri D.B. Shukla i/by Shri Yogesh D. Dalvi for Respondent No.1.


Shri A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State.












1. This is one more glaring case of gross violation of Article21 of the Constitution of India and that also at the hands of the Police machinery, which is supposed to  be protector of common man.  The victims are the second and third Petitioners  who are senior citizens.


2. We may  note  here  that  by  an  order  dated  31st October, 2012,  we directed  that the Writ Petition shall be heard and disposed of finally. This   Court   noted   in   the   said   order   that   what   survives   for consideration is the  prayer Clauses  (b) and (d) which concern illegal detention of the second and third Petitioners.

The first Petitioner and the  third Respondents are husband and wife.   The Second and  third Petitioners are parents of the first Petitioner.   On 29th

November, 2011,at the instance of the third Respondent, the first Information  Report was registered with Navghar Police Station, Mumbai, complaining about the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian

penal Code against the  Petitioners. As far as the arrest of the   Second   and   third   Petitioners   is   concerned, following   are   the admitted facts which are  borne out  from the record.


(i) The Respondent No.1 who was  at  the  relevant  time Sub­Inspector   of   Police   attached   to   Navghar   Police Station, Mumbai was  deputed  to Aurangabad under

the   permission   of   the   Assistant   Commissioner   of Police,  Mulund Region.  The station diary entry to that effect  has  been  recorded  at  10.40  on 2nd  December, 2011.


(ii) The   first   Respondent   took   the   second   and   third Petitioners   into   custody   at   22.50   on   2nd December 2011 at Aurangabad, but were not shown as arrested.

The first Respondent brought them to Bombay.

(iii)   The   station   diary   entry   dated   3rd  December,   2011 records that at 20.20,  the second and third Petitioners were produced before  the Senior  Inspector of  Police Shri Bhorde of Navghar police station.    It is recorded that the first  Respondent  was investigating into  the offence.     It   is   recorded   that   the   Second   and   third Petitioners   were   placed   in   the   custody   of   the   two Police   Constables   bearing   buckle   Nos.97015   and 8040305.


(iv)  The Station Diary entry of 4th  December 2011 at 08.10 shows   that   the   second   and   third   Petitioners   were shown   as  arrested   and   the   information   about   their arrest was conveyed to one Manoj Baburao Nishandar, Solapur  on his cell phone.


(v)  On 4th December 2011, the second and third Petitioners were   taken   from   the   Police   station   at   10.45   for producing   them   before   the   Court   of   the   learned

Metropolitan   Magistrate.       They   were   actually produced before  the learned  Metropolitan Magistrate at   15.05     on   4th  December   2011   and   they   were enlarged on bail.

(vi) We must  note  that  the  aforesaid  facts  are  admitted facts.


3. We may note here that the order dated 19th  June 2012 of this Court records  that the investigation of the case has been transferred to Vikhroli Police Station and, therefore, the notice was issued only as regards the prayer clauses (b)  to (d).     The prayer (b) is  for issuing direction to take action against the first  Respondent for non­compliance with the directions issued by the  Apex  Court  in  the case of D.K. Basu Vs.State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416 ].   Prayer (c) is for grant of compensation on account of illegal arrest.   Prayer (d) is for directing the  fourth Respondent  to initiate disciplinary proceedings against  the first Respondent.   The learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Petitioners pointed  out  that  going  by  the  record,  the  first Respondent  took  the second and third Petitioners  into the custody at 20.50 on 2nd December 2011 at Aurangabad.  The first Respondent brought them to Navghar Police Station at 20.20 on 3rd  December 2011. However, till 8.10 on 4thDecember 2011, they were not shown  as arrested though they were in custody continuously from 20.50 on 2nd  December  2011.   It is urged that this action is patently illegal and   is in violation  of  Articles  21 and 22 of the   Constitution   of   India   as   well   as   Section   57   Code   of   Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as “the CRPC”).   He pointed

out   various   allegations   made   in   the   Petition   as   regards   inhuman treatment  meted out to the second and third Petitioners  in the onward journey  from  Aurangabad to Navghar  Police  Station  at Mulund.  He pointed  out  that  both  the   second  and  third  Petitioners  were   senior citizens   on   the   relevant   date.       His   submission   is   that   apart   from initiating action in accordance with law,  in view of gross violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court  in the  case of  D.K. Basu (supra) and in view of violation of Articles 21 and 22 of  the Constitution of India,   the   Petitioners   are   entitled   to   substantial   amount   by   way   of compensation.


4. The learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  first Respondent, apart   from   the   earlier   affidavit   dated   2nd  April   2012,   has   tendered additional affidavit affirmed on 3rd December 2012.   His submission is

that the first Respondent has acted as per the instructions of the Senior

Inspector of Police of Navghar Police Station and as per the instructions

of the said officer, he brought the second and third Petitioners to the

Navghar Police Station and has made an entry in the station diary in the

night of 3rd December 2011 showing that they were produced before the

Senior Inspector of Police who in turn handed over their custody to the

two Police Constables.     He submitted  that all  further actions at  the

police   station   are   by   the   Senior   Inspector   of   Police   and   the   first

Respondent   has   merely   followed   his   directions.       He   denied   the

allegations made in  the  Petition.      He  pointed  out  that  though  the

second and third Petitioners were  taken into custody at 20.50 on 2nd


December 2011, onward journey from Aurangabad  to Mumbai took 20

hours and, therefore, if the period of 20 hours is excluded, the second

and   third   Petitioners   were   produced   before   the   learned   Magistrate

within 24 hours from the time of arrest.  His submission is that neither

there is any violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India

nor Section 57 of the CRPC.   He urged that all the guidelines laid down

in   the  case  of D.K.  Basu  (supra)  have  been  complied  with.        He,

therefore, submitted  that  there is no illegality committed by  the  first



5. The learned APP has  produced the station diary and all the

relevant  documents  before  this  Court.    He  pointed  out  that  all  the

relevant station diary entries were made by the first Respondent and the

illegality  has  been  committed  by  the  first Respondent.     As  regards

compliance with  the  directions in  the case  of D.K. Basu  (supra),  he

urged  that  the station diary  records  that  the  reasons  for  arrest were

informed to the second and third Petitioners and their close relatives

However, he could not show us any Memorandum of Arrest drawn in

compliance with  the directions in  the case of D.K. Basu  (surpa). He

urged that as the entire default is on the part of the first Respondent,

even if  this Court is inclined  to direct   compensation to be paid,  the

same will have to be made payable by the first Respondent. ash 8 wp-856.12

6. Before dealing with the factual aspects, it will be necessary

to make a reference to the directions issued  by the Apex Court in the

case of D.K. Basu (supra).    Paragraphs 35 to 38 thereof read thus :

35. We,   therefore,   consider   it   appropriate   to

issue   the   following  requirements  to   be

followed in all cases of arrest or detention

till legal provisions are made in that behalf

as preventive measures:

(1)   The   police   personnel   carrying   out   the

arrest and handling the interrogation of

the arrestee should bear accurate, visible

and  clear identification  and name  tags

with  their designations. The particulars

of all such police personnel who handle

interrogation   of   the   arrestee   must   be

recorded in a register.

(2)  That   the   police   officer   carrying   out

the   arrest   of   the   arrestee   shall

prepare a memo of arrest at the time

of   arrest and   such   memo   shall   be

attested by at least one witness, who

may either be a member of the family

of   the   arrestee   or   a   respectable

person of the locality from where the

arrest   is   made.   It   shall   also   be

countersigned   by   the   arrestee   and

shall   contain   the   time   and   date   f



(3)  A  person  who  has  been  arrested  or

detained and is being held in custody

in   a   police   station   or   interrogation

centre   or   other   lock­up,   shall   be

entitled to have one friend or relative

or   other   person   known   to   him   or

having   interest   in   his  welfare  being

informed, as soon as practicable, thatash 9 wp-856.12

he   has   been   arrested   and   is   being

detained   at   the   particular   place,

unless the attesting witness of the memo

of  arrest is  himself  such  a  friend  or  a

relative of the arrestee.

(4)  The  time, place of arrest and venue of

custody of an arrestee must be notifie

by  the police where  the next  friend or

relative of the arrestee lives outside the

district  or  town  through  the  Legal Aid

Organisation   in   the   District   and   the

police   station   of   the   area   concerned

telegraphically within  a  period  of  8  to

12 hours after the arrest.

(5)  The   person   arrested   must   be   made

aware of  this right  to have someone

informed of his arrest or detention as

soon as he  is put under arrest or  is


(6)  An entry must be made in the diary at

the   place   of   detention   regarding   the

arrest   of   the   person   which   shall   also

disclose the name of the next friend of

the  person  who  has  been informed  of

the arrest and the names and particulars

of the police officials in whose custody

the arrestee is.


(7)   The   arrestee   should,   where   he   so

requests, be also examined at  the  time

of   his   arrest   and   major   and   minor

injuries, if any present on his/her body,

must   be   recorded   at   that   time.   The

“Inspection Memo” must be signed both

by   the   arrestee   and   the   police   officer

effecting   the   arrest   and   its   copy

provided to the arrestee.


(8)   The   arrestee   should   be   subjected   to

medical examination by a trained doctor

every 48 hours during his detention in custody   by   a   doctor   on   the   panel   of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health  Services  of   the   State   or   Union

Territory   concerned.   Director,   Health Services should prepare such a panel for

all tehsils and districts as well.


(9)  Copies  of   all   the   documents  including

the memo of  arrest,  referred  to  above,

should be sent  to  the  Illaqa Magistrate

for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet

his lawyer during interrogation, though

not throughout the interrogation.

(11)   A   police   control   room   should   be

provided   at   all   district   and   State

headquarters,   where   information

regarding   the   arrest   and   the   place   of

custody   of   the   arrestee   shall   be

communicated by the officer causing the

arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the

arrest and at the police control room it

should   be   displayed   on   a  conspicuous

notice board.

36. Failure   to   comply   with   the   requirements hereinabove   mentioned   shall   apart   from rendering  the  official concerned  liable  for departmental action, also render him liable to  be punished  for contempt  of court  and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in  any  High  Court  of  the  country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.


37.  The  requirements,   referred   to   above   flow from   Articles   21   and   22(1)   of   the Constitution   and   need   to   be   strictly followed. These would apply  with equal force to   the   other   governmental   agencies   also   to which a reference  has  been made earlier.


38. These   requirements   are   in   addition   to   the constitutional and  statutory safeguards and do not detract from various other directions given by the courts  from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights  and dignity of the arrestee.


(emphasis added)


7. It is  also necessary  to make  a  reference  to what is laid down in Paragraph  4 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sheela   Barse   Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   [(1983)2   SCC   96].         In Paragraph 4 of the said decision, it is held thus:­


“4. We may now  take up  the  question  as  to how

protection   can   be   accorded   to   women   prisoners   in

police lock­ups. We put forward several suggestions to  the   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the petitioner and the State of Maharashtra in the course of   the   hearing   and   there   was   a   meaningful   and constructive debate in court.  The State of Maharashtra offered its full cooperation to the Court in laying down

the   guidelines   which   should   be   followed   so   far   as women prisoners in police  lock­ups are concerned and most   of   the   suggestions   made   by   us   were   readily

accepted by the State of Maharashtra. We propose to give   the   following   directions   as   a   result   of meaningful   and   constructive   debate   in   court   in regard  to  various aspects of  the question argued before us:


(i)  We would direct that four or  five police lock­ ups   should   be   selected   in   reasonably   good localities where only female suspects should be kept  and  they  should  be  guarded  by  female constables. Female suspects should not be kept in a police lock­up in which male suspects are detained.   The   State   of   Maharashtra   has intimated  to  us  that  there  are  already  threeash 12 wp-856.12

cells where  female suspects  are  kept and are guarded by female constables and has assured the   Court   that   two   more   cells   with   similar arrangements  will be  provided exclusively  for female suspects.


(ii)  We would  further direct  that interrogation of


females   should   be   carried   out   only   in   the


presence of female police officers/constables.


(iii)  Whenever a person is arrested by the police


without   warrant,  he must  be  immediately


informed of the grounds of his arrest and in


case of every arrest it must immediately be


made known to the arrested person that he


is entitled to apply for bail. The Maharashtra


State   Board   of   Legal   Aid   and   Advice   will


forthwith get a pamphlet prepared setting out


the legal rights of an arrested person and the


State of Maharashtra will bring out sufficient


number of printed copies of  the pamphlet in


Marathi which is the language of the people in


the State of Maharashtra as also in Hindi and


English and printed copies of the pamphlet in


all the three languages shall be affixed in each


cell in every police lock­up and shall be read


out to the arrested person in any of the three


languages which he understands as soon as he


is brought to the police station.


(v)  We would direct that in the City of Bombay, a


City Sessions Judge,  to be nominated by  the


principal   Judge   of   the   City   civil   court,


preferably a lady Judge, if  there is one, shall


make  surprise visits  to police lock­ups in  the


city periodically with a view to providing the


arrested   persons   an   opportunity   to   air   their


grievances   and   ascertaining   what   are   the


conditions in the police lock­ups and whether


the requisite  facilities are being provided and


the provisions of law are being observed and


the  directions  given   by  us  are   being  carried


out. If it is found as a result of inspection that


there are any lapses on the part of the police


authorities, the City Sessions Judge shall bringash 13 wp-856.12


them   to   the   notice   of   the   Commissioner   of


Police   and   if   necessary   to   the   notice   of   the


Home Department  and if even  this  approach


fails,  the   City  Sessions  Judge  may  draw  the


attention of the Chief Justice of the High Court


of Maharashtra to such lapses. This direction in


regard   to   police   lock­ups   at   the   district


headquarters   shall   be   carried   out   by   the


Sessions Judge of the district concerned.


(vi)  We would direct that as soon as a person is


arrested,   the   police   must   immediately


obtain from him the name of any relative or


friend whom he would  like to be  informed


about his arrest and the police should get in


touch   with   such   relative   or   friend   and


inform him about the arrest; and lastly….”


( emphasis supplied)


8. It will be also necessary to make a reference to the decision


of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State


of Maharashtra,  [(2011)1 SCC 694] and in particular paragraph   118


which reads thus :


“118. In case the arrest is imperative, according to


the  facts of  the case,  in  that event,  the arresting


officer   must   clearly   record   the   reasons   for   the


arrest of the accused before the arrest in the case


diary,  but   in   exceptional   cases   where   it   becomes


imperative   to   arrest   the   accused   immediately,   the


reasons   be   recorded   in   the   case   diary   immediately


after the arrest is made without loss of any time.”


(emphasis added)



It will be also necessary to make a reference to the decisions


of the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtraash 14 wp-856.12


[(2003)2 SCC 649].     In Paragraph 14 of the said decision, the Apex


Court held thus:­


“14. Tested in the light of the principles aforesaid, the


impugned   orders   dated   10­1­2002   and   11­1­2002


must be held to be orders passed by overstepping the


parameters of judicial interference in such matters. In


the  first place, arrest of  an accused is a part of  the


investigation   and   is   within   the   discretion   of   the


investigating   officer.   Section   41   of   the   Code   of


Criminal   Procedure   provides   for   arrest   by   a   police


officer   without   an   order   from   a   Magistrate   and


without a warrant. The section gives discretion to the


police   officer   who   may,   without   an   order   from   a


Magistrate   and   even   without   a   warrant,   arrest   any


person in the situations enumerated in that section. It


is open to him, in the course of investigation, to arrest


any   person   who   has   been   concerned   with   any


cognizable   offence   or   against   whom   reasonable


complaint has been made or credible information has


been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his


having   been   so   concerned.   Obviously,   he   is   not


expected  to  act in  a mechanical manner  and in  all


cases  to  arrest  the  accused  as  soon  as  the  report is


lodged. In appropriate cases, after some investigation,


the investigating officer may make up his mind as to


whether it is necessary to arrest the accused person. At


that  stage  the  court  has  no  role  to  play.  Since  the


power   is   discretionary,   a   police   officer   is   not


always   bound   to   arrest   an   accused   even   if   the


allegation  against  him  is  of  having  committed  a


cognizable offence. Since an arrest is in the nature


of an encroachment on  the  liberty of  the subject


and  does  affect  the  reputation  and  status  of  the


citizen, the power has to be cautiously exercised. It


depends   inter   alia   upon   the   nature   of   the   offence


alleged and  the  type of persons who are accused of


having committed  the cognizable offence. Obviously,


the   power   has   to   be   exercised   with   caution   and




(emphasis added)


ash 15 wp-856.12


9. In  the light of  the  aforesaid law laid down by  the Apex


Court, now  the  facts of  the case will have  to be  appreciated.     The


station diary entry made at 22.50 hours on 2




December 2012 by the


Usmanpura   Police   Station,   Aurangabad   records   that   the   first


Respondent  who was  the  Sub  Inspector  of  Police  of  Navghar  Police


Station, Mumbai, informed  that he was  taking  the  second  and  third


Petitioners   from   their   residence   at   Aurangabad   for   the   purposes   of


investigation   of   the   offence   registered   at   the   instance   of   the   third


Respondent.   It will be necessary to make a reference to the version of


the  first Respondent in  the  first  affidavit  dated  2




April  2012.      In


Paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, he has stated thus:­


“5. I say that after the registration of the offence,


investigation commence and pursuant whereof, the


Petitioner   No.2   &   3   were   taken   into   in   the


custody  for purpose  of  the  investigation  and  I


have visited  the house of  the Petitioner  and  take


them   to  local   police   station   and   accordingly   the


concern   police   station   was   informed   for   taking


them  to Mumbai  for  the purpose of investigation


and   entry   in   police   Station   Usmanpura   at


Aurangabad was made.”


(emphasis added)


10. Thus,  the  first Respondent  himself  has  admitted  that  he


had taken the second and third Petitioners into custody for the purposes


of investigation.       Thus,  there is no  doubt  that in  the night  of  2




December 2011 at about 22.50, the first Respondent took the secondash 16 wp-856.12


and   third   Petitioners   into   custody   at   Aurangabad   and   the   first


Respondent   brought   them   to   Navghar   Police   Station   at   Mulund,


Mumbai.    The station diary entry at 20.20 of 3




December 2011 of


Navghar   Police   Station,   Mumbai   records   that   the   first   Respondent


produced the second and third Petitioners before the Senior Inspector of


Police Shri Bhorde.  It also records that the Accused (Second and third


Petitioners   )   were   handed   over   in   the   custody   of   the   two   Police


Constables.   As far as this aspect is concerned, the version of the first


Respondent in his first affidavit is very vague.   The same reads thus:­


“After reaching to the Mumbai to concern Police


Station   i.e.   Navghar   Police   Station   they   have


produced  before Senior Police Officer.   During


course   of   initial   investigation   reveal   the


involvement of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and


therefore,   they   were   come   to   be   arrested.


Accordingly  they  have  been  produced  before  the


concern   Court   and   Hon’ble   Court   was   pleased


enlarge them on bail.”


(emphasis added)


The version of the first Respondent in the  subsequent affidavit reads




“The   Petitioner   and   Respondent   reached   to


Mumbai at about 8.20 pm. by  that  time Court


hours are over.    The Respondent No.1 produced


the   Petitioner   Nos.1   &   2   before   the   Senior


Officer and accordingly diary made.   The Senior


Officer   directed   the   respondent   No.1   to   keep


them   in   rest   room   as   the   accused   cannot   be


produced before  the court even  if  there would


take decision of their arrest save and except on


next day.   Therefore, the senior P.I personally made


an enquiry with the Accused.   The copy of Stationash 17 wp-856.12


House diary entry at Sr. No.46 dated 3.12.2011 is


annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “D”.”


(emphasis added)


Undisputedly only on 4




December 2011 at 08.10, the second and third


Petitioners   were   shown   as   arrested   and   were   produced   before   the


learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bhoiwada at 15.05 on the same day.


11. Thus, the arrest of the second and third Petitioners made


by   the   first   Respondent   at   Aurangabad   is   just   before   20.50   on   2




December 2011.       At  that  time no entry of arrest was made in  the


station diary at Usmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad in terms of the


guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.   There was no Arrest Memo


drawn at Aurangabad.   In terms of the decision in the case of Sheela


Barse  (supra),  though  the  third  Petitioner is  a woman,  she was not


informed about her right to apply for bail.  Within 24 hours from 20.50


on   2




December  2011,  they  were   not  produced  before   the  nearest


Magistrate.   In fact, the first Respondent ought to have produced them


before the learned Magistrate at Aurangabad.   Moreover, though  they


were  brought  to  Navghar  Police  Station  at Mumbai  at  20.20  on  3




December   2011,   they   were   illegally   detained   in   the   police   station


without showing them arrested and were ultimately  shown as arrested


on the next day morning at 08.10.   Shockingly after admitting in the


first affidavit that he had taken the second and third Petitioners into theash 18 wp-856.12


custody  at Aurangabad for investigation, in the second affidavit in reply


in Paragraph 4, the first Respondent has come out with the following




“Hence, it is submitted that the accused/ petitioner


No.2   and   3   were   produced   within   24   Hours   if


journey period is excluded as contemplated under


Section 57 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.”


12. In so many words, the first Respondent has stated in the


first affidavit that the second and third Petitioners have been taken into


custody for the purposes of investigation.   There is no other mode of


taking the Accused into the custody for investigation save and except by


arresting  them.   Thus,  the  said  Petitioners were  arrested just  before


20.50 on 2




December 2011 at Aurangabad.   But they were shown as


arrested in Mumbai at 08.10 on 4




December 2011. They were thus


illegally detained by the Police nearly for 35 hours and 40 minutes.  The


decision in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) was not


followed.   There is no entry made in the station diary as to why they


were arrested. Memorandum of arrest was not drawn. Entry of arrest


was   not   made   in   the   station   diary   of   Usmanpura   Police   station   at


Aurangabad.  Therefore, this is a case of gross violation of the directions


issued by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), Sheela Barse


(supra) and   Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre  (supra).     This is also a


case of gross violation of the Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution ofash 19 wp-856.12


India as the directions in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) flow from the


Articles  21  and  22.     It is  shocking  to note  that  12 years  after  the


decision in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) under which directions were


issued  which were already a part of the earlier decisions of the Apex


Court,  the officers of the Maharashtra Police have shown a complete


disrespect and disregard to the binding directions.  We may note here


that by introducing Section 41B in CRPC by Section 6 of Amendment


Act No.5 of 2009, the directions in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) have


been incorporated in the Statute .


13. Thus,   there   is   a   violation   of   fundamental   rights   of   the


second   and   third   Petitioners   guaranteed   under   Article   21   of   the


Constitution of India.  There is also a violation of clauses (1) and (2) of


the Article 22 of the Constitution of India. This case of blatant violation


of human rights shocks  the conscience of the Court.


14. Now the other issue is regarding grant of compensation.  In


the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993)2 SCC 746], the


issue   regarding  grant  of  compensation in  a  public law  remedy  was


considered by the Apex Court.   In Paragraphs 17 and 22, it was held




“17. It   follows   that   ‘a   claim   in   public   law   for


compensation’   for   contravention   of   human


rights   and   fundamental   freedoms,   the


protection   of   which   is   guaranteed   in   theash 20 wp-856.12


Constitution, is  an  acknowledged  remedy  for


enforcement and protection of such rights, and


such a claim based on strict liability made by


resorting  to a constitutional  remedy provided


for the enforcement of a fundamental right is


‘distinct  from, and in addition to, the remedy


in   private   law   for   damages   for   the   tort’


resulting   from   the   contravention   of   the


fundamental   right.  The  defence  of   sovereign


immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the


concept   of   guarantee   of   fundamental   rights,


there   can   be   no  question   of   such  a  defence


being available in the constitutional remedy. It


is   this   principle   which   justifies   award   of


monetary   compensation   for   contravention   of


fundamental   rights   guaranteed   by   the


Constitution, when that is the only practicable


mode of redress available for the contravention


made   by   the   State   or   its   servants   in   the


purported   exercise   of   their   powers,   and


enforcement   of   the   fundamental   right   is


claimed by resort to the remedy in public law


under the Constitution by recourse to Articles


32 and 226 of  the Constitution. This is what


was indicated in Rudul Sah




and is the basis of


the   subsequent   decisions   in   which


compensation was awarded under Articles 32


and 226 of the Constitution, for contravention


of fundamental rights.”


“22. The above discussion indicates the principle on


which the court’s power under Articles 32 and


226 of the Constitution is exercised to award


monetary compensation for contravention of a


fundamental right. This was indicated in Rudul






and certain  further observations  therein


adverted   to   earlier,   which   may   tend   to


minimise  the effect of  the principle indicated


therein,   do   not   really   detract   from   that


principle.   This   is   how   the  decisions   of   this


Court in  Rudul  Sah




and  others in  that line


have   to   be   understood   and  Kasturilal




distinguished  therefrom. We  have  considered


this  question   at   some   length  in   view   of   theash 21 wp-856.12


doubt raised, at times, about the propriety of


awarding   compensation  in   such  proceedings,


instead of directing  the claimant  to  resort  to


the ordinary process of recovery of damages by


recourse  to  an  action in  tort.  In  the  present


case, on the finding reached, it is a clear case


for award of compensation to the petitioner for


the custodial death of her son.”


15. In the case of Suber Singh v. State of Haryana   [(2006)3


SCC 178], in Paragraph 46, the Apex Court held thus:­


“46.  In   cases   where   custodial   death   or   custodial


torture   or   other   violation   of   the   rights   guaranteed


under Article 21 is established, the courts may award


compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 or 226.


However,  before   awarding  compensation,   the   Court


will have to pose to itself the following questions: (a)


whether   the   violation   of   Article   21   is   patent   and


incontrovertible, (b) whether the violation is gross and


of a magnitude to shock the conscience of the court,


(c) whether the custodial torture alleged has resulted


in death or whether custodial torture is supported by


medical report or visible marks or scars or disability.


Where there is no evidence of custodial torture of a


person   except   his   own   statement,   and   where   such


allegation is not supported by any medical report or


other corroborative evidence, or where there are clear


indications   that   the   allegations   are   false   or


exaggerated fully or in part, the courts may not award


compensation as a public law remedy under Article 32


or   226,   but   relegate   the   aggrieved   party   to   the


traditional   remedies   by   way   of   appropriate


civil/criminal action.”


16. Lastly,   on   this   aspect,   it   will   be   necessary   to   make   a


reference to the decision of the Apex Court dated 9




September 2011 in


the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v State of Maharashtra &


Another ( in Criminal Appeal No.1758 of 2011).  In Paragraph 19 of theash 22 wp-856.12


said decision, the Apex Court held thus:­


“The power and jurisdiction of this Court and the


High Courts to grant monetary compensation in


exercise   of   its   jurisdiction   respectively   under


Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India


to   a   victim   whose   fundamental   rights   under


Article  21  of  the  Constitution  are  violated  are


thus, well established. However, the question now


is whether on facts in hand, the appellant is entitled


to monetary compensation in addition to what has


already  been  awarded  to  him  by  the High Court.


Having considered the case in the light of the fact


situation stated above, we are of  the opinion  that


the   appellant   does   not   deserve   further   monetary




(emphasis added)


18. Coming back to the facts of the present case, by taking the


affidavits of the first Respondent as it is and going by the record of the


Police Station in the form of station diary entries, this is a case where


virtually it is an admitted position that the directions contained in the


decision in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) were breached.    Though the


Petitioners  were in   fact  arrested  at  Aurangabad,  they  were  illegally


detained   for     about   36   hours   before   they   were   actually   shown   as


arrested   and   few   hours   thereafter,   they   were   produced   before   the


learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate.     Thus,   there   is   gross   violation   of


Articles 21 and  clauses (1) and (2) 0f   Article 22 of the Constitution of


India.  As we have narrated earlier, there is no dispute on facts and the


aforesaid  conclusions  follow  from  the  facts  which  are  not  disputed.


Therefore, this is a case where the second and third Petitioners can seekash 23 wp-856.12


compensation   on   the   ground   of   violation   of   fundamental   rights


guaranteed under Articles 21  of the Constitution of India in a public


law remedy.   At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to


the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in  the case of Veena


Sippy Vs. Narayan Dumbre (2012) ALL MR (Cri) 1263) to which one of


us ( Shri A.S. Oka, J ) is a party .       This Court considered various


decisions of the Apex Court in which the compensation on account of


illegal detention was granted when the public law remedy was adopted.


This was a case where the Petitioner who was a woman  was illegally


detained in contravention of the directions of the Apex Court in the case


of D.K. Basu  (supra).    The  said judgment  shows  that  the  Petitioner


therein was illegally detained in police custody from the evening of 4




April 2008 till 12.30 noon of 5




April 2008.   In the said decision, this


Court granted compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ with interest thereon at


the rate of 8% per annum from the date of illegal detention.  This Court


also directed payment of costs of Rs.25,000/­.    The State Government


has complied with the directions given in the said decision by accepting


the same.


19. In the present case, the age of both the Petitioners (second


and third Petitioners) is above 60 years.    They were arrested at 20.50


on 2




December 2011 at Aurangabad and were brought  to Navghar


Police   Station,   Mulund,   Mumbai   from   Aurangabad   at   20.20   on   3


rdash 24 wp-856.12


December 2011.  They were taken from Aurangabad at 22.50 and they


reached   Navghar   Police   Station,   Mulund,   Mumbai,   nearly   after   22


hours.    They were shown as arrested in the morning of 4






2011  and were  released  on bail in  the  afternoon. Though    the  said


Petitioners were arrested just before 20.50 0n 2




December 2011 at


Aurangabad, they were shown as arrested in Mumbai at 08.10 on 4




December 2011. They were thus illegally detained by the Police nearly


for 35 hours and 40 minutes.    As they were not shown as arrested for


a period over 35 hours, they could not apply for bail.   Apart from gross


violation  of  their  fundamental  rights,  there is  a  gross  breach  of  the


directions issued  by  the Apex Court  from  time  to  time. There is no


dispute about the facts.  Therefore, in the present case, both the second


and   third   Petitioners   are   entitled   to   reasonable   compensation   of


Rs.2,50,000/­ each.    Interest payable on the said amount will be at the


rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present Petition i.e.






February 2012.


20. The other issue is whether  the compensation  should   be


made  payable  by  the  first Respondent.        The  first Respondent  has


submitted   that   he   has   acted   as   per   the   instructions   of   the   Senior


Inspector of Police.     Here we may note  that  the station diary entry


made at 20.20 on 3




December 2011 of Navghar Police Station records


that  the  first Respondent  produced  the  second  and  third  Petitionersash 25 wp-856.12


before  the Senior  Inspector of Police Shri Bhorde.   Thus,  the Senior


Inspector of Police was aware at that time regarding illegal detention of


the second and third Petitioners.    Notwithstanding this, on the next


date in the morning at 08.10 hours,  the second and third Petitioners


were shown as arrested.


21. Whether the first Respondent acted as per the instructions


of the Senior Inspector of Police and whether the Senior Inspector of


police has played any role are the matters which cannot be decided in


writ jurisdiction.       Suffice it to say  that when the gross violation of


fundamental rights under Articles 21  of the Constitution of India at the


hands of the police officers of the State is established, the compensation


will have to be paid by the State Government and it will be open for the


State Government to recover the same from the officers found guilty of


dereliction of duty by following due process of law.   It is also necessary


to  direct  the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai,  to nominate either  a


Joint Commissioner of Police or Additional Commissioner of Police to


hold an inquiry for ascertaining as to who is responsible for violation of


fundamental   rights   of   the   second   and   third   Petitioners   guaranteed


under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.  On the basis of the report,


the   State   Government   will   have   to   initiate   appropriate   proceedings


against the concerned erring police officers in accordance with law.   ash 26 wp-856.12


22. Before parting with the judgment, we may record here that


the learned APP has  fairly assisted  the Court by pointing out correct


factual position  and by showing all the relevant entries in the station




23. Accordingly,   we   dispose   of   the   Petition   by   passing   the


following order:




(a) We hold that the detention of the second and third


Petitioners by the officers of Navghar Police Station,


Mulund, Mumbai,  from 2




December 2011  till 4




December 2011 is illegal and there has been a gross


violation of the fundamental right of the second and


third Petitioners guaranteed under Article 21  of the


Constitution of India;


(b) We   direct   the   Fifth   Respondent   –   State   of


Maharashtra to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­


each  to  the  second  and  third  Petitioners  together


with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum


from 28




February 2012 till realisation or payment.


We grant time of eight weeks from today either toash 27 wp-856.12


pay  the    amount directly  to  the  second and  third


Petitioners or to deposit the same in the Court;


(c) We make it clear that it will be open for the State


Government to initiate appropriate proceedings for


recovery of the said amounts from the erring police


officials who are responsible for the illegalities;


(d) We direct the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to


appoint an appropriate higher officer not below the


rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or Additional


Commissioner of Police to hold an inquiry for fixing


the  responsibility  for  the illegalities committed by


the   police   officers   of   Navghar   Police   Station,


Mulund, Mumbai.   We keep open all the issues in


that behalf ;


(e) The inquiry shall be completed within a period of


three   months   from   today.     On   the   basis   of   the


inquiry  report,  the State Government shall initiate


necessary action against the erring Police Officials;ash 28 wp-856.12


(f) We direct the State Government to pay costs of this


Petition quantified at Rs.25,000/­ to the second and


third Petitioners within eight weeks from today;


(g) Costs shall be paid directly to the second and third


Petitioners or deposited in this Court within a period


of eight weeks from today;


(h) In the event the amount of compensation as well as


the amount of costs is deposited in this Court, it will


be   open   for   the   second   and   third   Petitioners   to


withdraw the said amounts;


(i) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms;


(j) All   concerned   to   act   on   authenticated   copy   of




( S.S. SHINDE, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )


Categories: 498A, Contempt Tags: ,
  1. keith vaaz
    June 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    wow good judgement!! Rs 2.5 lacs to each victim awarded??? I have followed Bhasin’s case against Inspector RR Joshi..but Bhasin was only awarded Rs 2000!! Why this anomaly??

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: