Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
T.V. Nalawade, K.K. Sonawane, JJ.
Vachhalabai – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2018
Decided On : 17-10-2019
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Relief of compensation – Claim of compensation – Jurisdiction - It is her contention that as police of Bori Police Station advised her to go to Bhalki (Rural) Police Station, she went to Bhalki (Rural) Police Station on 15th October, 2018, but the Bhalki Police did not supply any information to her. It is contended that she went to the office of District Superintendent of Police, Bidar as Bhalki is situated in Bidar district, but no information was supplied to her by the office of the District Superintendent of Police, Bidar. It is contended that she went to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhalki to collect information and there she realized that her husband was not produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhalki by police. It is contended that she returned to Parbhani on 16th October, 2018 and again went to Bori Police Station on that day – Held, Only because a person appears to be involved in many cases, there is suspicion against him of that nature, the police cannot be allowed to deviate from the procedure laid down for arrest and detention, which is already quoted. Such illegal actions of police create more problems for the entire family of the person arrested. To make the police realize that they cannot get absolved from their liability even when they take such action against the persons of Pardhi community, it has become necessary to grant compensation in the present matter. The other part of inquiry, like to fasten the liability departmentally etc., can be left with the concerned departments of the police personnel involved in the matter - In the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the law in respect of compensation, which can be granted in such cases. In subsequent case, reported as, (Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1993 SC 1960), the Apex Court has laid down that such actions are in blatant violation of human rights. India was party to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the resolution passed in that convention is adopted by the India. The Apex Court has referred Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 signed in that Convention. Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the powers given to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India make it not only possible but necessary for this Court to grant compensation in such cases - Only due to the circumstance that the husband of Petitioner is shown to be involved in around 18 cases of theft, robbery etc., this Court holds that compensation in the present matter can be nominal and that will be in the recognition of the fundamental rights of the husband of Petitioner - Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
T. V. Nalawade, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2. The proceeding is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is the contention of the Petitioner, who is wife of the person, who was allegedly detained by police from 14th October, 2018 to 24th October, 2018 that her husband was illegally detained by Police of Karnataka and third degree torture was also given to him.
3. The Petitioner and her husband are residents of Jintur Taluka, Parbhani District. They have two sons and one daughter. It is the contention of the Petitioner that her husband namely Bharat Shinde is the only breadwinner of the family and he was making earning by cultivating the land. They are from Pardhi community (Denotified Tribe). It is the contention of the Petitioner that on 14th October, 2018 she and her husband had gone to the Railway Station, Parbhani to drop a guest in a four wheeler of her husband bearing registration No.MH-22-U-5955. It is her contention that Karnataka Police came there and took her husband in their custody without informing any reason for the arrest of the husband. It is contended that on that day, the husband was having on his person gold ornaments weighing 48 grams and cash amount of Rs.90,000/-. It is contended that all these articles were taken over by the Police of Karnataka and they took her husband away with the car of her husband from Railway Station. It is her contention that as she felt that they were probably taking her husband to Bori Police Station, Parbhani she went Bori Police Station but Bori police informed her that Bhalki Police, Karnataka had taken her husband to Bhalki (Rural) Police Station. It is her contention that as police of Bori Police Station advised her to go to Bhalki (Rural) Police Station, she went to Bhalki (Rural) Police Station on 15th October, 2018, but the Bhalki Police did not supply any information to her. It is contended that she went to the office of District Superintendent of Police, Bidar as Bhalki is situated in Bidar district, but no information was supplied to her by the office of the District Superintendent of Police, Bidar. It is contended that she went to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhalki to collect information and there she realized that her husband was not produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhalki by police. It is contended that she returned to Parbhani on 16th October, 2018 and again went to Bori Police Station on that day.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that she attempted to give report to Bori Police about the aforesaid incident, but her report was not accepted. It is her contention that her husband was illegally detained by Bhalki Police and so she made complaint to National Human Rights Commission against the Respondents on 22nd October, 2018. The Respondents are Karnataka Police and Maharashtra Police. It is contended that Human Rights Commission also did not take cognizance of her complaint.
5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that from 09:00 am of 22nd October, 2018 to 09:00 am of 23rd October, 2018 she was called on cell phone by Police of Karnataka and Karnataka Police demanded money from her for releasing her husband from custody. It is contended that due to these circumstances, she filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1500 of 2018 in this Court for habeas corpus. It is contended that in that proceeding on 1st November, 2018, Bhalki Police filed say and contended that her husband was arrested in Crime No.18 of 2018 by Bhalki Police on 24th October, 2018. It is contended that when her husband was taken in custody by Bhalki Police on 14th October, 2018, false contention was made in the criminal writ petition filed in this Court by Bhalki Police that her husband was taken in custody on 24th October, 2018.
6. It is the contention of Petitioner that as per her information, on 24th October, 2018, appl
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
