State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

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.

Latest Legal News