Police officers cannot arrest and detain a person without reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed an offence. The forfeiture of bail amount is not justified if the accused has a valid reason for not appearing in court.

JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---These four petitions have been filed by one common petitioner Prakash Waman Shinde. His grievance is about the incident dated 22nd August, 1983 in which three police officers, that is to say, one Inspector of Police, a sub-inspector of Police and a Police Constable allegedly caught hold of the petitioner who had parked his auto-rickshaw at the lawful place and hauled him up to the Police Station at about 8.30 a.m. on that date, arrested him quite illegally, kept him in the police lock-up till 8.30 p.m. concocted some trumped up charges against him, made him shell out a total sum of Rs. 800/- as deposits at the Police Station by way of bail and released him thereafter only to have the said amount of Rs. 800/- forfeited by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the next day in the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.

2. The facts out of which this present petition arises can be gathered only from the averments made in the petition. So far as the record of the lower Court and the record at the Police Station are concerned, very little assistance is received for understanding even the prosecution case from that record.

The facts alleged by the petitioner are as follows :---

(a) Auto-rickshaw No. MHT 8261 belongs to one Vinayak Chango Chaudhari, but it is the petitioner who plies the rickshaw for hire within the area of the Regional Transport Office, at Thane. The vehicle was registered with the said authority and even a permit for plying the said auto-rickshaw within the said limit had been issued by the Regional Transport Officer in respect of the vehicle. The permit was valid upto 31st October, 1983.

It is the petitioner's contention that sometimes in the first week of August 1983, a Police Constable attached to Mulund Police Station, who was on traffic duty at the Mulund Check Naka, was assaulted by some lorry drivers and by some members of the public. This Mulund Check Naka is a place which is the dividing line between Bombay and Thane. It appears that some of the drivers of the auto-rickshaws also were suspected to be having a finger in the pie. According to the petitioner, this assault resulted from the fact that, according to the lorry drivers and the rickshaw drivers and the members of the public, the attitude of the Police Constable in question towards these lorry drivers and the rickshaw drivers of the Thane was extremely arrogant. The petitioner's plea is that he had nothing to do with the incident of assault. But the fact remains that the traffic duty constable attached to the Mulund Police Station as also the other officers of the Police Station started nourishing a grievance against the rickshaw drivers plying even in the Thane region and wanted to take revenge upon them by hook or crook.

(b) The precise grievance of the petitioner, in the instant case, is that on 22nd August, 1983, at about 8.30 a.m., he had parked his rickshaw near the Check Naka on the Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg but well within the Thane limits and not within the area which fell in the Bombay region. Along with petitioner, other rickshaw drivers also had parked their rickshaws at that place and all of them were waiting for the customers. The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden, the Police Constable and the Police Officers on traffic duty attached to the Mulund Police Station made a swoop upon nine of the auto-rickshaws and their drivers including the petitioner even though all the auto-rickshaws were parked not within in the Bombay limit but within the Thane limit of the Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg. The grievance is that for no rhyme or reason all of them were hauled up to the Police Station and were put in a lock up. So far as the petitioner was concerned, he was asked to produce his driving licence, the requisite permit and the insurance policy, that all of those documents he produced and still his arrest continued till 8.30 p.m. in the police lock-up. He was required to give bail in cash in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document