9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others and be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. D. The respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner for illegally detaining the petitioner for more than 33 hours." 3. According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 illegally detained him for 33 hours in connection with FIR No. 223 of 2014 registered with Kopargaon Police Station. According to the Petitioner, his marriage with Respondent No. 5 was solemnized on 27.12.2010. After the marriage, the couple started residing at their matrimonial house at Chembur, Mumbai, while his parents were residing at their native village Chas, Taluka Sinner, District Nashik. In the year 2012, he had lent an amount of Rs. 5,80,000/- to the brother of Respondent No. 5 for purchasing a car. When he started demanding the amount back, Respondent No. 5 began quarreling with him and started residing at her parental house. She then, lodged FIR No. 223 of 2014 at Kopargaon Police Station and an offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 was registered against him and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon at about 15.00 hours. Thus, according to him, right procedure was followed in producing the petitioner before the Magistrate within the statutory period. 6. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State and learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3. We have also carefully gone through the entire papers. 7. According to the advocate for the petitioner, under the directions of Respondent No. 3 who was the Investigating Officer the petitioner was made to move out of his house at 6.00 or 6.45 a.m. of 11.09.2014. He was taken from Chembur to Kopargaon Police Station on the same day but he was formally arrested at 15.45 hours and was produced before the Magistrate at 3.00 p.m. of 12.09.2014. Thus according to the learned advocate, even going by the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, he was produced before the Magistrate after 33 hours from the time he was taken out of his house which is clearly a violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, in breach of the fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen by a Constitution. The learned Advocate also placed reliance on the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner was brought to Kopargaon, the police had not arrested him and he had accompanied them to Kopargaon voluntarily. Therefore, during the period from 6.30 a.m. of 11.09.2014 till the time he was arrested at 15.45 hours, his life and personal liberty was not restricted. It is therefore necessary to ascertain as to whether it can be said that the petitioner was really arrested at about 6.30 a.m. of 11.09.2014. It is only if we reach such a conclusion that we would be able to record a finding that he having been produced before the Magistrate at 15.00 hours of the next day, his total detention would exceed 24 hours in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. 10. The statements in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and the one filed by Respondent No. 3 apparently take a usual stand in consonance with the submissions of their learned advocates saying that when the petitioner was not arrested on 6.30 a.m. on 11.09.2014, it cannot be said that there was any delay in producing him before the Magistrate. However, a careful reading of the police papers annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 would make it abunda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o how police machinery in the State is either oblivious of the legal position or is emboldened to breach even the fundamental rights of the citizens. We are, making these observations with a sense of responsibility and we have strong reasons to say so. At least in three successive judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, a similar breach of fundamental rights of the citizens have been noticed and directions granting compensation to the petitioners and imposing costs on the State government have been passed. The cases of Niraj Ramesh Jariwala, Shri. Sagar Balu Ubhe and Satish Vasant Salavi (supra) are those three instances where this Court has come across similar violations of the rights of citizens guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Inspite of such repeated orders, we do not see any discernible change in the mind set of police machinery or for that matter the State Government. We have not been shown that any steps have been taken either by the State Government or the higher officials of the Police Department in setting their home in order. We do not propose to comment any further. We are satisfied that there is a blatant violation of fundamenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
