MP High Court Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Police Constable Illegally Detained In Bailable Offence
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to a police constable who was illegally detained in connection with a bailable offence, holding that the police cannot keep an accused in custody merely because they intend to produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 305]Declaring the arrest and continued detention illegal and violative of Article 21...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to a police constable who was illegally detained in connection with a bailable offence, holding that the police cannot keep an accused in custody merely because they intend to produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 305]
Declaring the arrest and continued detention illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed that production before a Magistrate within 24 hours is only the "outer constitutional safeguard" and cannot override the statutory mandate requiring release on bail in bailable offences.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held,
"This Court is unable to accept the contention of the respondents that merely because the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within twenty-four hours, the constitutional mandate stood satisfied. Compliance with Article 22(2) cannot be read in isolation so as to dilute the statutory protection available in respect of bailable offences. Production before the Magistrate within twenty-four hours is the outer constitutional safeguard. However, where the offence itself is bailable, the investigating officer cannot ignore the legislative command requiring release of the accused on furnishing the requisite bail bond".
The bench highlighted that Section 47(2) of BNSS mandates that an arrested person in a bailable offence must be informed of his right to be released on bail, as the purpose of the provision is to safeguard personal liberty and therefore the statutory obligation under the said provision is mandatory in nature.
"Section 47(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita unequivocally provides that when a person is arrested for a bailable offence, the arresting officer shall inform him that he is entitled to be released on bail. The statutory obligation is mandatory in nature and is intended to safeguard personal liberty. The purpose of the provision would stand defeated if an accused in a bailable offence is unnecessarily confined in police custody and produced before the Magistrate only after prolonged detention".
A petition was filed seeking directions against the actions of the Station House Officer of District Morena for illegally arresting and detaining the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for the grant of compensation of ₹5 lakh, besides initiation of departmental proceedings against the erring police officer.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the action of the SHO (respondent 4) was contrary to the mandate of BNSS as well as the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was argued that Petitioner was serving as a Police Constable, and came to implicated merely based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused.
The counsel argued that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are assumed to be correct, the offence of extortion under Section 308(7) of BNS is still bailable. Therefore, the police officer had no authority to detain the petitioner after his arrest.
The counsel argued that under Section 47(2) of BNSS, which governs arrest by a police officer without warrant, the arresting officer is under a mandatory obligation to inform the accused arrested in a bailable offence that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for bail.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the provision does not contemplate that the accused must be first remanded to judicial custody or kept in police lock-up until being produced before the Magistrate.
The counsel argued that the legislative intention of Section 47(2) of BNS is to secure the immediate restoration of liberty, subject only to the execution of the requisite bond.
The counsel argued that despite repeated requests, the SHO (respondent no 4) did not release the petitioner. Further, despite his readiness to furnish bail bonds, the petitioner was not informed of his statutory right to bail, and was kept in police custody until he was produced before the Magistrate the following day.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that while the petitioner was enlarged on bail, the Magistrate sought an explanation from the SHO as to by what authority the petitioner had been arrested and detained in a bailable offence. The petitioner argued that despite judicial direction, no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the concerned police officer.
The counsel for the State argued that the petitioner was arrested during investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency and the arrest was made in discharge of official duties. The counsel argued that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that the investigating officer bona fide believed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary.
The court noted that the principal question was whether SHO (respondent no 4) was legally justified in arresting and detaining the petitioner and whether the detention amounted to infringement under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In the present case, the court noted that the SHO failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory procedure governing arrest in a bailable offence and that the petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty without authority of law.
Therefore, the bench allowed the writ petition, declared the petitioner's arrest illegal and granted him ₹5 Lakhs as compensation.
Case Title: Rahul Ataria v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-11135-2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 305
For Petitioner: Advocate Ankur Maheshwari
For State: Government Advocate Sohit Mishra