Arrests for bailable offences must comply with prescribed guidelines; failure to do so may lead to wrongful detention claims.

1. Criminal Application No.1670 of 2019 has been filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , initially for quashing the First Information Report (for short "the FIR") vide Crime No. 322 of 2018 registered with Gangapur Police Station, District - Aurangabad on 17th October 2018 and by way of amendment, for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 261 of 2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur, District - Aurangabad for the offence punishable under S.324, S.143, S.148, S.147, S.149, S.323, S.504, S.506 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, Criminal Writ Petition No. 787 of 2019 is filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10, 00, 000/- for illegally detaining the petitioners for more than 23 hours. Since the facts are common and the applicants / petitioners are same, these two matters are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts leading to the proceedings are that one Anand Praju Pankade, lodged FIR on 17th October 2018 with Gangapur Police Station, contending that he is resident of Ambewadi, Taluka - Gangpur, District - Aurangabad. However, his workplace is at Newasa Phata, District - Ahmednagar. He goes up and down from his house to the workplace daily. Applicant No.1 has his agricultural land adjacent to the land of the informant. They are cousin brothers, however, there is dispute since last two years prior to the FIR on account of agricultural land. The informant states that he was proceeding on motorcycle around 7.00 a.m. on 17th October 2018 and was near the land belonging to one Feroj Patel. At that time both the applicants / petitioners came suddenly in front of the informant along with their three unknown friends. The informant went to persuade the applicants. At that time both the applicants assaulted him with iron rod. Applicant No.1 had assaulted him on his right cheek and applicant No.2 caused injury to his head. The other three unknown persons had assaulted the informant with PVC pipe on his hands, legs, thighs, back etc. According to him, the quarrel was separated by one Anna Govind Pankade, Vijay Pankade, Babasaheb Pankade. Thereafter, the assailants went on their motorcycle. Supplementary statement of the informant was recorded stating that he was not aware that applicant No.1 is serving in G.S.T. Office.

3. The injury certificate has been collected, which shows three injuries, stated to be simple. Statements of witnesses are also there, especially, Anna Pankade, Babasaheb Pankade, Raosaheb Pankade and Govind Pankade. They all have stated that they have witnessed the present applicants and three unknown persons assaulting the informant.

4. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the applicants / petitioners, learned APP appearing for the State and learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents.

5. As regards the Criminal Application for quashment of the proceedings is concerned, learned Advocate for the applicants mainly submits the plea of alibi as defence and that the statements of the interested witnesses and false implication.

6. The plea of alibi can be proved by an accused either by leading specific evidence regarding the presence at a different place or in certain circumstances, he can also rely on the cross - examination of the prosecution witnesses also. But certainly, it would be a point to be considered at the time of trial and cannot be considered under an application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Unless there would have been an admitted document or a document issued by the Government Office, the plea of alibi cannot be taken cognizance of. Here, prima facie, there is evidence against bot