The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22) ordered the Maharashtra Government to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to a man, who was illegally arrested by the Mumbai Police and was kept in detention for nearly 26 days.

The Court while declaring the arrest to be illegal, also ordered the State to take action against the officers, who showed the petitioner as an 'extortionist' and arrested him and further action is ordered against the Magistrate, who remanded the petitioner to police and judicial custody. 

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata noted that the police failed to establish any satisfaction that the arrest of the petitioner - Bipin Agrwal was required. 

"The State shall pay compensation to the Petitioner in the sum of Rs 5,00,000 on account of the unlawful arrest and detention for six days in police custody and for 20 days in judicial custody within a period of two weeks. The State is directed to initiate appropriate strict action including an order of immediate suspension against all the concerned police officers and recover the proportionate compensation from their salaries if so advised. We direct the Registry to place this Judgment before the Administrative Committee of the High Court for taking appropriate action against the Magistrate(s) of the 64th Court, Mumbai who adjudicated the remand application of the Petitioner on August 5th, 8th and 10th of 2017 for having wrongfully and without verifying and carefully examining the matter and without recording any reasons permitted police and judicial custody of the Petitioner," the bench ordered. 

According to the petition, Agrwal, a resident of Walkeshwar, a plush area in South Mumbai, was appointed as a constituted Attorney by his mother-in-law for negotiating the offering with regards to her flat which underwent redevelopment. However, there were certain disagreements between the developer and the petitioner over the amount of selling of the flat etc. The developer did not agree to the Rs 1.64 crore amount sought by the petitioner for selling the flat. He however, handed over Rs 2 lakhs to him as an advance, however, just the moment he accepted the money, police entered the room (developer's office) and handcuffed him and arrested.

Subsequently, the developer lodged a case against Agrwal alleging that he was an extortionist. The judges, noted from the record, that several documents pertaining to the case were fabricated only to show the petitioner as a history sheeter extortionist.  

"We felt a sense of deep anguish imagining what he went through. Clearly this is a case of sheer abuse of process by the Developer in collusion with the Police. It is evident from the documents placed on record. It is a classic case where a Police Sub Inspector has exploited his official position and weaponised Police machinery at his command, to advance the Developer's interest against the Petitioner, to wreak havoc in the Petitioner's life apparently because he did not succumb to their pressure to accept the deal offered and threatened them to expose their wrongdoings along with certain Society members. The reasons are obvious and not too far to seek," the bench observed.

As regards the merits of the case, the bench noted that there was nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was an unknown person to the developer and rather he was the Power of Attorney holder for his mother-in-law, who was a flat owner in the Society which the complainant was developing. The judges said that even assuming the Petitioner was arrested under a mistaken impression and the Police had 'reasons to believe' that he was an extortionist, a preliminary inquiry with the Petitioner would have revealed the correct facts.

"The Police deliberately did not take any pains to find out why was the cash given. It could have been against advance rent payable, sale consideration or deposit toward other contractual obligation. No effort was made by the police sub-inspector to ascertain the truth behind receipt of cash. The Police have failed to show in what manner the requirements of Section 41-A of CrPC have been complied with, particularly when the offence falls under Section 384 of the IPC, with a maximum punishment upto 3 years. There is no material on record to show that the Police had any satisfactory answers. We therefore conclude that the arrest and remand were high handed, arbitrary and made without application of mind and without following the basic statutory provisions of law," the judges held.

Upon examining the record of the case, the bench concluded that the Police have attempted to characterise the Petitioner as some gangster, history-sheeter or an extortionist without having an iota of evidence in that regard and even without an investigation into genuineness of complaint. It clearly appears to us that the police sub-inspector in connivance with the Developer, with a view to prevent the Petitioner from pursuing his lawful remedy has falsely implicated him in the present crime by clearly con-writing a story of alleged extortion, the judges said. 

"We find that, the Magistrate of the 64th Court was also responsible for the Petitioner's wrongful detention. No reasons have been recorded for justifying continuation of remand of the Petitioner. We find that the Magistrate has failed to independently apply his mind and adopted a very casual approach, thereby causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner on account of continued entirely unlawful arrest and detention. We acknowledge that the unlawful arrest has caused substantial financial loss to the Petitioner, in addition to irreparable damage to his reputation and lasting blemish on his credibility," the bench held. 

With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition. 

Appearance:

Petitioner Bipin Agrwal appeared as a Party-in-Person.

Additional Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik represented the State.

Advocates Anvay Pawar and Yuvraj Tidke represented the PSI.