0
mumbai high court

Compensation of Rs. 50,000 granted for illegal detention of the Petitioners: Bombay High Court

A compensation for Rs 50,000 each was granted to the two petitioners that were illegally detained in the jail. The two Petitioners are ex-military persons and were illegally detained by the Police authorities and the executive magistrate for six days. The Bombay High Court presided over by J. T.V. Nalawade & J. M.G. Sewlikar laid this ratio in the case of Arun Tagad & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [Criminal Writ Petition No. 574 of 2013].

In January 2013 35-year-old women, had lodged an FIR against the Petitioners that during a quarrel they had assaulted her. The reason for the quarrel was because her family did not allow them to use bullocks and carts for fetching water. The Petitioners were later arrested on the basis of the relevant section of the India Penal Code i.e. Section 323, 324, 504 & 506 of the Code. However, they were released on furnishing a personal bond and surety. Later, as per the report they were arrested again outside the court campus by the same police and were taken before the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate ordered them to furnish interim bond with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each. The Petitioners pleaded to accept cash security instead of surety bond as it would take some time. The Executive Magistrate rejected their plea and only after 6 days they could get bail.

The Petitioner submitted that the acts of the Police authority and Executive Magistrate are mala-fide and the arrest was illegal which also violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Respondent submitted that the acts were taken as a preventive measure against the Petitioners.

The Division bench of the Bombay High Court was of the opinion that, “The order of the Executive Magistrate asking the present Petitioners to execute interim bonds of aforesaid nature is illegal. The bond was involving onerous condition, two sureties having solvency certificates of Rs.25,000 each for each opponent. These circumstances show that there were mala fides and the intention of the police was to see that the Petitioners are arrested and they are kept behind bars for a few days. The record and circumstances show that the Executive Magistrate acted as per such desire of police and he did not apply his mind. The Executive Magistrate ought to have gone through the aforesaid provisions which show that he had no such jurisdiction.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat