Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, N.J. Jamadar, JJ.
Sadiquabee Mohd. Usman Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2754 of 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2021
Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention - Indian Penal Code, Section 380 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Compensation - Public Law Damage
Fact of the Case:
The wife of the accused filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the release of her husband, who was allegedly illegally detained by the police. The accused was remanded to judicial custody but was kept in police lockup in violation of the court order. The investigating officer provided reasons for the delay in lodging the accused in prison, citing unavailability of COVID-19 testing facilities and vehicles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused was unlawfully detained in police custody despite being remanded to judicial custody. The court rejected the investigating officer's explanations for the delay and concluded that the accused's constitutional and legal rights were violated.
Issues: The issues were whether there was illegal detention from 26 July 2021 till 28 July 2021 and whether the accused was unlawfully detained in police custody after being remanded to judicial custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's detention in police custody was in violation of the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, and the explanations provided by the investigating officer were not acceptable. The court invoked the principle of 'Public Law Damage' and awarded compensation to the accused for the infringement of his constitutional and legal rights.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition, directed the State to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation to the accused, and allowed the State to hold an inquiry to fix liability on the concerned officer/officials.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The judgment emphasizes the principle of "Public Law Damage," which authorizes courts to award compensation to individuals whose constitutional or legal rights have been infringed by public authorities [judgement_subject].
The case involves illegal detention and violation of the accused's rights after being remanded to judicial custody, with the police authorities failing to lodge the accused in prison within the prescribed time frame, despite the order of the Magistrate (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the accused was unlawfully detained in police custody in violation of the Magistrate’s order, which constitutes a breach of constitutional rights (!) (!) .
The explanations provided by the investigating authorities for the delay—such as unavailability of testing facilities and vehicles—were considered unconvincing, and the delay was deemed unjustified (!) (!) (!) .
The court recognized that the constitutional and legal rights of the accused were flagrantly violated, warranting redress through the principle of "Public Law Damage" (!) .
The court awarded monetary compensation to the accused for the infringement of his rights, emphasizing that such compensation is a necessary remedy to address violations of fundamental rights by state authorities (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that courts have the authority to direct the state to pay compensation in cases of unlawful detention and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against responsible officials (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the remedy of monetary compensation is a practical and effective measure for redress, especially when constitutional or legal rights are violated by public officials (!) (!) .
The court clarified that even in cases involving detention, the primary goal is to uphold the rule of law and individual rights, and compensation serves as an important tool to reinforce accountability (!) .
The order includes a direction for the state to pay Rs. 20,000 to the affected individual within four weeks, with the possibility of holding inquiries to identify and take action against responsible officials (!) (!) .
These points collectively illustrate the court's approach to addressing violations of constitutional rights through the principle of "Public Law Damage" and the importance of providing effective remedies, including monetary compensation, in cases of illegal detention and procedural violations.
JUDGMENT
N.J. Jamadar, J. - This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is fled by the wife of Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hanif Shaikh, the accused, for the following reliefs :-
(a) to issue 'Writ of Habeas Corpus' or Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any appropriate writ, direction, order to the Respondents, to forthwith release the Petitioner's husband, named, Mohd. Usman Mohd Hanif Shaikh, or such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deed ft and proper illegal detention at Shivaji Nagar Police Station lock-up after MCR & Deonar Police Station dated 26 July 2021 and 27 July 2021;
(b) to order disciplinary proceeding to be initiated against the concerned police officers;
(c) to order for the compensation to be awarded to the Petitioner' husband by the Respondents.
2. The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :
(a) On the basis of a report lodged by Shahnawaz Sayyed Sarang, C.R. no.399 of 2021 was registered at Deonar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code ("Penal Code") for the alleged theft of mobile phone handsets on the morning of 29 May 2021.
(b) The Petitioner alleges that in connection with the said crime, the Petitioner's husband Mohd Usman Mohd Hanif Shaikh, the accused was illegally detained by Deonar Police on 26 July 2021 at about 09.30 p.m. No notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") was given, though warranted by the circumstances of the case. The Accused was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 27 July 2021. The Accused came to be produced before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 45th Court, Kurla, Mumbai at about 12.50 p.m. on 28 July 2021. The Accused raised grievance of illegal detention before the learned Magistrate. However, the Accused was remanded to the police custody till 30 July 2021.
(c) On 30th July, 2021, the learned Magistrate declined to extend the police custody and remanded the Accused to judicial custody till 13 August 2021. However, the Accused was kept in the lockup at Shivaji Nagar Police Station in gross violation of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, remanding the Accused to the judicial custody and the constitutional and legal rights of the Accused. Hence, the Petitioner approached this Court on 1 August 2021 and invoked the writ jurisdiction.
3. A report was fled by the Investigating Officer. As the record revealed that the Accused was remanded to judicial custody on 30 July 21 itself and yet the Accused was not lodged in the prison till 5 August 2021, the concerned investigation was directed to file an affidavit, dealing with the allegations in the Petition.
4. Mr. Pratap Desai, Police Sub-Inspector attached to Deonar Police Station has fled the affidavit. It was categorically denied that the Accused was apprehended on 26 July 2021 and kept in illegal detention till 28 July 2021. In contrast, the investigating officer asserted that the Accused was arrested on 27 July 2021 at about 06.00 p.m., which fact is evidenced by entries in the case diary. The allegations of illegal detention were thus sought to be refuted.
5. As regard the allegations of detention of the Accused in the police custody, post order by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate remanding the Accused to the judicial custody, the investigating officer has asserted that :-
"(i) I say that as on 31.07.2021 to 01.08.2021 being Saturday and Sunday, there is no facility available in the government hospital to do RTPCR, hence the present Petitioner's husband namely Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hanif Shaikh is kept in Shivaji Nagar Lock up separately by following COVID-19 guidelines. Then subsequent dates on 02.08.2021 and 03.08.2021, due to unavoidable circumstances like this out of six vehicles, i.e. (i) Mobile 1 Van, (ii) Light Van,
(iii) Peter- 1 Jeep, (iv) Mobile -2 Jeep, (v) Mobile 3 Jeep and (vi) Mobile 5 Jeep, no government vehicle was available, the copy of the Log Book/Diary of the government vehicles is cl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
