9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been shown that any steps have been taken either by the State Government or the higher officials of the Police Department in setting their home in order. We do not propose to comment any further. We are satisfied that there is a blatant violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. There are no strict parameters, however, considering the fact that the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate at Kopargaon after about 32 hours and 30 minutes, in our view as a solace the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation. In addition we also deem it appropriate to direct the State Government/Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner as a cost of this petition - the detention of the petitioner at the instance of Respondent No. 3 from 6.30 hours of 11.09.2014 to 15.00 hours of 12.09.2014 is illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India - Respondent No. 1/State of Maharashtra are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner together with interest @ 8% per annum fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 was registered against him and his parents. 4. According to the petitioner, on 11.09.2014 Respondent No. 3 who was then attached to the Kopargaon Police Station sent a police party to the house of petitioner at Chembur, at 6.00 a.m. He was taken to the R.C.F. Police Station, Chembur and then he was taken to Kopargaon Police Station by 1.00 p.m. of the same day and was put in the custody. However, instead of producing him before the Magistrate as per the mandate of the law he was illegally detained for more than 33 hours and was produced before the Magistrate on 12.09.2014, at 3.00 p.m. Thus, according to the petitioner, he was illegally detained by Respondent No. 3 in violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and hence he has made the above mentioned prayers. 5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed separate affidavits-in-reply which are similar. Respondent No. 3 was Police Inspector posted in Kopargaon Police Station and also the Inquiry Officer has submitted his affidavit-in-reply. They have admitted registration of the FIR and that Respondent No. 3 was investigating the crime. They have stated that Respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a citizen by a Constitution. The learned Advocate also placed reliance on the decision in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan and another [AIR 1994 SC 1775] and obviously the decision in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273]. The learned Advocate also cited the decisions of various Division Benches of this Court in the case of Niraj Ramesh Jariwala and others Vs. Mahadeo Pandurang Nikam and others [2013 ALL MR (CRI) 1], The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shri. Sagar Balu Ubhe [2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1010] and Satish Vasant Salavi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [2015 ALL MR (Cri) 3388]. 8. Per contra, the learned APP and also the learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 submitted that all the procedure as per the directions in the case of D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar (supra) was duly followed and there was no violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The learned APP and the learned Advocate also submitted that the petitioner was for the first time arrested at 15.45 hours of 11.09.2914 and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 would make it abundantly clear that in fact the police party was sent to Chembur with the sole object of arresting the petitioner and his father. On 07.09.2014 Respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to Respondent No. 2 and had sought permission to send the police party to Chembur for effecting the arrest. The wireless message record at page 59 of the Annexures further shows that the permission granted by Respondent No. 2 was communicated to Respondent No. 3. It is thus apparent that right from inception the whole purpose of sending the police party to Chembur was to arrest the petitioner and even Respondent No. 2 who is Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar must be presumed to have accorded the permission for it at the request of Respondent No. 3. If such is the state of affairs, the stand taken in the affidavits-in-reply and the submissions of the learned APP and the learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 falls to ground. 11. A lame attempt was made on behalf of Respondent No. 3 by producing a Call Data Record to show that the petitioner was allowed to make and receive telephone calls during the period he along wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opose to comment any further. We are satisfied that there is a blatant violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Equally, there has been a breach of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) and we propose to proceed to address the request of the petitioner to pay compensation. 13. Obviously, there are no strict parameters, however, considering the fact that the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate at Kopargaon after about 32 hours and 30 minutes, in our view as a solace the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation. In addition we also deem it appropriate to direct the State Government/Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner as a cost of this petition. 14. As is mentioned above Respondent No. 3 has obtained permission of Respondent No. 2 while sending the police party to Chembur for arresting the petitioner. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things to direct Respondent No. 1/the State Government and Respondent No. 2/the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar to first deposit/pay the compensation and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
