The main legal point established is that in cases of illegal arrest and detention, the victims are entitled to compensation, and the State is responsible for ensuring such compensation.

JUDGMENT

T. V. NALAWADE, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed for giving direction to Respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/to each of Petitioners on the ground that the Petitioners were illegally arrested and detained in custody at the instance of police.

3. The submissions made and record show that on 28th January, 2013, FIR was given to Beed Rural Police Station against the Petitioners by one lady and the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On 30th January, 2013, both the Petitioners were arrested by police of Rural Police Station, Beed and the Petitioners were produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed on the same day. The Judicial Magistrate First Class granted bail to both the Petitioners and they were released when they furnished personal bond and surety bond. It is the contention of Petitioners that when they came out of the campus of Court, same police arrested them immediately and they were taken before the Executive Magistrate, Beed.

4. On 30th January, 2013, both the Petitioners were produced before the Executive Magistrate, Beed and the Executive Magistrate made order against the Petitioners and directed them to give interim bond with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/each. On 30th January, 2013, the Petitioners moved an application before the Executive Magistrate and requested the Magistrate to permit them to give cash security in place of surety bond and they submitted that they had applied for getting solvency certificate, but such certificate generally is not issued immediately. The Executive Magistrate did not allow this application and adjourned the matter to next date.

5. It is the contention of Petitioners that there were malafides in the action taken by police and the Executive Magistrate had also did not pass necessary orders and due to that they were illegally detained in jail from 30th January, 2013 for about six days. It is the contention of Petitioners that they are not habitual offenders. It is their contention that Petitioner No.2 was surveying in the military at the relevant time and Petitioner No.1 was a respected person and resident of same locality and so detention was not necessarily in the chapter case. It is contended that his arrest and detention were illegal and there is violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners. The following specific reliefs are claimed in the present matter:-

“B) It may kindly be held and declared that, the police have no power or authority to arrest the petitioners U/sec. 107 of Cr.P.C. after getting bail.

(C) It may kindly be declared and held that, order dated 30-1-2013 passed by Executive Magistrate is illegal and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

(D) It may kindly be declared and held that, the respondent No.4 illegally detained the petitioners.

(E) It may kindly be declared and held that, the respondents violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners therefore the petitioners are entitled to get compensation from the state.

(F) It may kindly be declared and held that, the respondents no. 4 and 5 violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners therefore state is liable to pay compensation.

(G) It may kindly be declared and held that, Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/each from the state.”

6. The submissions made and copy of FIR dated 28th January, 2013 show that incident had allegedly taken place on 22nd January, 2013 at about 08:30 pm. A lady aged about 35 years had given FIR against the present two Petitioners and one Mahendra Tagad, who is a brother of Petitioner No.2. She had made allegations that these three accused had picked up quarrel with her family on the ground that her family had not allowed them to use the bullocks and bullock cart for fetching water. The lady had alleged that during quarrel, Petitioner Shaile