BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Revati Mohite Dere and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.
Abhijit Arjun Padale – Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No.1197 of 2022
Decided on 22.8.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 41 A and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 35 and 582] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 384 and 506 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 308(2) and 351(2) & (3)] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Extortion and criminal intimidation – Arrest and detention – Existence of power to arrest is one thing, justification for exercise of it is quite another – Apart from power to arrest, Police officers must be able to justify reasons thereof – No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person – Practice of mechanically reproducing in case diary all or most of reasons contained in Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued – Offence alleged against Petitioner was non-bailable but not punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years – As such, notice under Section 41A ought to have been served on Petitioner – Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever – Petitioner’s liberty was curtailed unnecessarily – State directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to Petitioner. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13)
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Shyam C. Chandak, J.—By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner seeks a writ, an Order or direction thereby declaring the Petitioner’s arrest and detention in F.I.R. No. 24 of 2022, registered with Vakola Police station, as illegal. Further, Petitioner seeks a direction to investigate into the alleged illegal action on the part of the Police authorities and subordinates, who have failed to follow the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273. The Petitioner has also sought a direction to the Respondents to pay compensation of Rs.5 Crore to the Petitioner for his illegal detention of 3 days i.e., from 15th January, 2022 to 18th January, 2022.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. Senior Police Inspector Mr. Prakash Khandekar and Prakash C. Kamble- P.S.I, have filed independent Affidavit-in-Reply and resisted the Petition on behalf of Respondent No. 7-Vakola Police Station.
3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and Petition is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives serves on behalf of the Respondents.
4. The facts giving rise to this Petition are that, the Petitioner is a journalist by profession. The Petitioner was arraigned as accused in the F.I.R. No. 24 of 2022, registered with Vakola Police station on 15th January, 2022 under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“I.P.C.”, for short) on the report of Mohd. Akil Siddhique. On the same day, the Petitioner came to be arrested by the Police. The Petitioner was produced before holiday Court i.e., learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Mumbai on 16th January, 2022. Said learned Metropolitan Magistrate noted that, the Petitioner was arrested without following the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), hence, remanded the Petitioner to M.C.R. Immediately, bail application was submitted by/on behalf of the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate called for the say of the A.P.P. to the bail Application. The A.P.P. was not present, therefore, the Petitioner had to remain in jail till 18th January, 2022. Ultimately, the bail application was heard by the regular Court i.e. 71st Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bandra, and the Petitioner was granted bail on 18th January, 2022.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the offence alleged against the Petitioner were not of a serious nature like murder, rape, dacoity etc. but one u/Sec.384 of I.P.C. which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both and u/Sec. 506 of I.P.C. which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, as the alleged threat was not to cause death or grievous hurt etc. Yet, no reasons were recorded before arresting the Petitioner to justify his arrest. This is clear violation of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. That apart, no notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was served upon the Petitioner before arresting him. Therefore, the Petitioner’s arrest, detention in Police custody and in jail for a total period of 3 days i.e., from 15th January, 2022 to 18th January, 2022 was not only unwarranted but also illegal. According to the Petitioner, the Police authorities arrested the Petitioner, just to torture, humiliate and harass him, however, it ultimately deprived the Petitioner of his fundamental right to life and liberty as guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Petition may be allowed, as prayed for.
6. Learned A.P.P. Mrs.Shinde submitted that, the first informant along with others had submitted a written complaint with the Vakola Police station on 10th August, 2021 alleging that the Petitioner was demanding money from them for running their road side small business and in case
Arrest and detention – No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person – It would be prudent and wise for a Police officer that no arr....
The judgment establishes that police must justify arrests and follow legal procedures, particularly in non-bailable offenses, to protect individual liberties.
Police must justify arrests under Section 41 CrPC, ensuring compliance with legal standards to protect individual rights.
Arrest may be authorised only if concerned officer has ‘reason to believe’ and there is `satisfaction qua an arrest’ that person has committed an offence – There must be a direct nexus or live link b....
Compliance with procedural safeguards in arrest as established in Arnesh Kumar is crucial, particularly for offenses punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years; violations can infringe fun....
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 2....
The court ruled that detention without prior FIR is illegal; however, compliance with arrest protocols established in the Arnesh Kumar case must be followed, and failure to challenge remand limits cl....
The arrest of an individual must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including providing specific grounds for arrest, which must be communicated in writing to ensure the accused's ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.