The court established that police officers must comply with statutory requirements before arresting another officer, and failure to do so constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The petitioner, a police officer has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance that his illegal arrest and detention on 13/03/2013 at the hands of the respondent no. 8-Investigation Officer has resulted in violation of his fundamental rights. The petitioner seeks compensation for his alleged illegal arrest and detention and also conduct of inquiry against the concerned police officers who, according to him, are responsible for his illegal arrest and detention.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was discharging duties as an Officer-in-charge of Karad City Police Station from 09/06/2008. On 15/01/2009 First Information Report bearing No. 19 of 2009 under the provisions of Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) as well as under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1919 came to be registered. The petitioner as an Investigation Officer conducted necessary inquiries and filed the charge-sheet within the prescribed time on 13/04/2009. On noticing the need to file a supplementary charge-sheet, the petitioner issued a communication to the Under Secretary to the Additional Chief Secretary in that regard on 20/06/2012. The petitioner was thereafter transferred from Karad City Police Station to the Local Crime Branch, Satara on administrative grounds after which further investigation in the aforesaid crime was undertaken by Police Inspector Shri Muluk from 26/10/2010. He continued as an Investigation Officer till May 2012 after which the investigation was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri B.S. Tamgadge. While the petitioner was serving as Police Inspector attached to the Security Branch of Usmanabad District Police, a fax message was received from the Additional Superintendent of Police with regard to the aforesaid crime. According to the petitioner, he attended office of the Additional Superintendent of Police on 08/01/2013 and answered various queries made to him with regard to the investigation carried out in Crime No. 19 of 2009. The petitioner again attended the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police on 13/03/2013. On that day, at about 2.00 P.M. he was informed by the 8th respondent that he had been placed under arrest in connection with offence punishable under Sections 201 and 218 of the Penal Code with regard to Crime No. 19 of 2009. No Memorandum of Arrest was prepared immediately and the petitioner was detained in the office of the respondent no. 8. Despite a request made by the petitioner to inform his near friends to come to the office of the respondent no. 8 and furnish security and bail bonds, that exercise was not undertaken.

3. On 14/03/2013, the petitioner was produced in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. A request was made for seeking police custody remand of various accused in Crime No. 19 of 2009 which included the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 14/03/2013 considered the said request made by the Investigation Officer. It was found that there was no material placed to indicate any actual participation of the petitioner in the conspiracy or murder of deceased Sanjay Patil with regard to which Crime No. 19 of 2009 had been registered. The learned Magistrate further observed that allegations levelled against the petitioner were with regard to alleged lacunae kept by him during the course of investigation which would amount to a distinct offence and which could not be clubbed with the main offence. The police remand report showed that offences under Sections 201, 218 and 221 of the Penal Code were attracted insofar as the petitioner was concerned. Since these were bailable offences, police custody remand was denied. The petitioner was remanded to Magisterial Custody remand till 28/03/2013. The petitioner immediately moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Magistrate on 14/0