Maharashtra Police officer ordered to pay Rs 2 lakh to man for illegal arrest

The court criticised the arresting officer for failing to apply the law properly and for not providing a valid reason or informing the petitioner of the grounds for arrest.

In Short

• High Court found charges unconstitutional or inapplicable
• Criticises lack of due process in arrest
• Investigating Officer to pay Rs 2 lakh, constable Rs 50,000

The Bombay High Court has directed a Maharashtra Police officer to pay Rs 2 lakh to a man whom he had illegally arrested. The court also directed another police constable, who was the complainant in the case, to pay Rs 50,000 to his estranged brother-in-law, who was illegally detained.

The bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and SG Chapalgaonkar was hearing a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR filed in Hingoli in June.

The case was initially registered on charges of defamation, sending offensive material, and dishonestly receiving or retaining a stolen computer under Sections 66-A and 66-B of the Information Technology Act.

The bench, however, observed that the charge of sending offensive material was invoked even though it had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It also noted that the charge of retaining a stolen computer was not applicable in this case.

Despite these sections not being applicable, the petitioner was arrested post-midnight on August 6, 2024. The accused petitioner was produced before a Magistrate’s court and granted bail on the same day.

"It is beyond imagination that before the arrest, the Investigating Officer will not apply his mind, as to which are the sections those are invoked, what is the punishment, that is, prescribed and whether he can make a legal arrest in such situations? The realisation of the wrong section, after the arrest of a person, would be a suicide attempt by an Investigating Officer, because he is bound to follow the law before and at the time of effecting arrest,” the court said.

The bench noted that the investigating officer provided no reason for the petitioner’s arrest, which is mandatory when a person is arrested on charges carrying less than seven years of imprisonment. Additionally, the grounds for arrest were not conveyed to him.

According to case details, the petitioner and his estranged wife were undergoing divorce proceedings when she filed a case against him for marital cruelty. Her petition alleged that he sent a message to a relative claiming she made videos of their intimate moments, which her brother circulated.

Another brother of the estranged wife, a police constable in Hingoli, alleged defamation and filed the case.