G.S. Patel, J.

1. On 11th January 2013, a Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order in this writ petition. The facts were briefly set out. Some of the documents were considered. The Court arrived at a prima-facie conclusion of non-compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basuv State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416) in matters of illegal detention. The Division Bench directed the Principal District Judge, Pune, to nominate any Judicial Magistrate, First Class (not one dealing with any of pending cases in this matter) to hold an enquiry. The Judicial Magistrate was required to call for the record from the police, to allow the petitioner to adduce documentary and oral evidence and to issue witness summonses to the witnesses concerned. The police authorities, too, were allowed to lead evidence. The Judicial Magistrate was required to enquire into the petitioner’s allegations and, in particular, the allegations that the petitioner was illegally detained by the police from 25th to 30th January 2012. The Judicial Magistrate was required to submit a sealed report before 30th April 2013, and was also to forward the papers placed before him and the evidence led before him in this enquiry. The petition was then to be placed for final hearing after receipt of the report.

2. On 3rd September 2013, the Judicial Magistrate’s report dated 5th August 2013 was placed before us. With the assistance of the learned advocates for the parties, we perused it. We found that the State was attempting to accept the report only in part. We noted that the petition sought a public law remedy claiming compensation for his illegal detention, and that the Judicial Magistrate’s report, submitted pursuant to the earlier directions, was that there was, in fact, such an illegal detention. We placed the matter of final orders on 17th September 2013. That is how the petition came to be taken up for final hearing.

3. In the meantime, the State Government filed Civil Application (L) No.399 of 2013, seeking a quashing of the Judicial Magistrate’s enquiry report.

4. We took up both the petition and the civil application for hearing and final disposal.

5. In these circumstances, Rule in the writ petition. The respondents waive service. By consent, the writ petition and the civil application are both taken up for hearing and final disposal.

6. The petitioner alleges that on 25th January 2012, the 3rd and 4th respondents took him into custody. This, he says, was illegal. He was not produced before a Judicial Magistrate till five days later, on 30th January 2012. He also says that on the day following his arrest — which he says is entirely illegal — he was severely assaulted by the 3rd and 4th respondents who tried to extract a confession from him. The petitioner’s family visited the Crime Branch Unit No.3 repeatedly from 27th to 29th January 2012. They were told on 27th January 2012 that the petitioner would be produced in court the following day. On that day, they were told he would be produced before court on the next day. On 30th January 2012, the petitioner’s family made a representation to the 2nd respondent (the Commissioner of Police) and to the Principal District Judge at Pune. On 29th January 2012, the petitioner was taken to Sassoon Hospital for a medical check. He was then kept in the Lashkar lock-up at Pune and was only produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 30th January 2012.

7. The petitioner relies on affidavits of his family members as evidence of their repeated visits. He has also placed on record, after the petition was allowed to be amended, extracts of the relevant register from the Police Commissioner’s office and these are said to show his family members’ visits to that office since the entries in that register record the names of the petitioners’ family members. The police, for their part, have filed affidavits disputing the petitioner’s contentions.

8. These are, broadly, the facts on which this court direct