High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Deprivation of Liberty Even for a Single Day Is One Day Too Many: Bombay High Court Grants Interim Bail in Alleged Illegal Detention Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


May 10, 2024: The Bombay High Court, in a critical judgement delivered by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, highlighted significant concerns over the arbitrary detention practices of GST officials, stressing that “deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many.”

Legal Context and Background: The court addressed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, concerning the alleged illegal arrest and detention of Mahesh Devchand Gala by the CGST officials beyond the statutory 24-hour period without proper justification, claiming a violation of fundamental rights.

Facts and Issues Arising: Mahesh Gala was detained by CGST officials on suspicion of GST evasion. His counsel argued that the arrest was arbitrary, citing prior cooperation and compliance with tax regulations by Gala and his company. It was contended that despite providing necessary documents and complying with a full audit in 2021, Gala was unlawfully detained for over 24 hours without production before a magistrate.

Unlawful Detention: The court noted that Gala was detained without sufficient cause and the explanations offered by CGST for the delay were “prima facie unconvincing” and seemed to be an afterthought.

Arbitrary Detention Practices: The justices criticized the practice of detaining individuals overnight under the guise of recording statements, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding individual liberty and maintaining judicial oversight to prevent misuse of detention powers.

Contradictory Affidavits: The court highlighted contradictions in the affidavits submitted by the respondents, which attempted to justify the delay in production but were inconsistent with previous statements.

Reference to Apex Court Rulings: The judgement frequently cited the Supreme Court’s perspective on the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, aligning with the principle that the judiciary must act as the first defense against misuse of state power.

Decision: Granting interim bail, the court ordered the release of Mahesh Gala on a cash bail of Rs.25,000 with the stipulation to furnish a Personal Recognizance Bond and sureties within six weeks. The next hearing was scheduled for June 24, 2024, to further address these issues.

Date of decision: May 10, 2024.

Mahesh Devchand Gala vs. Union of India & Ors.

Similar News