MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday directed the state government to compensate a retired police inspector for his illegal arrest and detention, terming it a violation of his fundamental rights. Sambhaji Achyutrao Patil, a recipient of President’s Police Medal for meritorious service, was arrested in 2013 on allegations of lapses during his investigation of a 2009 murder case.
Patil had completed the initial investigation and filed a charge sheet in 2009 before being transferred but was later summoned multiple times by the additional superintendent of police in connection with the case.
During one such appearance, he was arrested under bailable charges but was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, nor was he allowed to seek bail immediately. Patil alleged that his arrest lacked proper documentation, government consent as required under section 45(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and adherence to mandatory safeguards, leading to his unlawful detention for over 20 hours.
Patil argued that his arrest violated procedural safeguards, including non-compliance with supreme court guidelines and the lack of immediate grounds for custodial interrogation, making the detention arbitrary and unjustified. The state defended the arrest, claiming it was lawful and based on allegations of misconduct in the investigation.
However, a division bench led by justice AS Chandurkar and justice Rajesh S. Patil found multiple procedural lapses, including the failure to provide grounds for arrest as required under section 50 (grounds of arrest to be informed) of the CrPC and the lack of prior consent from the state government despite the arrest being related to Patil’s official duties. The court also noted that Patil was not promptly presented to a superior officer or magistrate, breaching section 56 (prompt production before magistrate) of the CrPC.
{{/usCountry}}However, a division bench led by justice AS Chandurkar and justice Rajesh S. Patil found multiple procedural lapses, including the failure to provide grounds for arrest as required under section 50 (grounds of arrest to be informed) of the CrPC and the lack of prior consent from the state government despite the arrest being related to Patil’s official duties. The court also noted that Patil was not promptly presented to a superior officer or magistrate, breaching section 56 (prompt production before magistrate) of the CrPC.
{{/usCountry}}Declaring the arrest arbitrary, the court emphasised that bailable offences did not warrant such detention. It awarded Patil ₹2 lakh in compensation, directing the state to recover the amount from the officers involved.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.