The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to a 26-year-old man who was arrested without being informed of the grounds of arrest or issued a proper notice. A Division Bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj D. Wakode passed the order after examining the circumstances of the detention.
The Court reiterated that High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, possess jurisdiction to award monetary compensation when fundamental rights under Article 21 are violated by state officials. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022) to underscore the legal principle governing such claims.
The Bench observed that Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that police officers, while effecting an arrest for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, must record reasons in writing for making or refraining from making an arrest. Section 41-A further requires issuance of a notice of appearance before the police officer in certain cases.
The Court noted that in the present case, no notice was issued under either Section 41 or Section 41-A to the petitioner. Furthermore, the general diary entry did not disclose that the grounds of arrest were communicated to him. There was also no record indicating receipt of ‘secret information’ that allegedly prompted the police raid on the petitioner’s hotel, where he was detained over alleged commercial misuse of a domestic gas cylinder under the Essential Commodities Act.
The Bench emphasized that neither the general diary entry nor the arrest panchanama was placed on record to demonstrate that any grounds of arrest were conveyed to the petitioner prior to his custody. No entry existed regarding the receipt of secret information either.
The Court also took into account that police officials had initially denied, before the High Court, seizing the petitioner’s mobile phone. However, a subsequent departmental inquiry confirmed that the officers had retained the phone without preparing a seizure panchanama. The inquiry established the charge against respondents numbered 3 and 4—that they had kept the petitioner’s mobile phone without drawing a seizure panchanama—as proved. Consequently, respondent number 3 had his increment withheld for one year, while respondent number 4 faced a deduction of Rs 1,500 per month from his pension for two years.
The Court quoted the observations of the Superintendent of Police during the inquiry, stating that respondent number 4 had not adhered to issued guidelines and had admittedly failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner, constituting a clear violation of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Invoking the Maharashtra State Police motto Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya (to protect the good and punish the evil), the Bench remarked that police officers owe a duty not only to the individual before them but also to the State and the community. It observed that respondents 3 and 4, whose primary duty was to uphold the law, had not only violated statutory provisions but also disregarded guidelines laid down by the Apex Court concerning arrest procedures.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Neelabati Behera (Smt) vs State of Orissa & Ors. (1993) and Rudul Sah vs State of Bihar and another (1983), which affirm that both the Supreme Court and High Courts possess jurisdiction to grant compensation for violations of fundamental rights under Article 21.
Having found the police officials guilty of violating the petitioner’s fundamental rights and committing an error in arresting him without adhering to procedural safeguards, the Bench directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to the petitioner.