Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Directed to Maharashtra Police to Pay Two Lakh Rupees for Unlawful Detention - Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has taken a strong stance against unlawful arrests and detention, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and dignity and Directed to Maharashtra police to pay Two Lakh Rupees for unlawful detention. The court awarded compensation to a petitioner who had suffered illegal detention, sending a clear message that justice must prevail even against the backdrop of police high-handedness.

The High Court, in its observation, stated, "Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many." This underscores the significance of personal freedom and the court's commitment to protecting citizens' rights.

The case revolved around the unlawful arrest and detention of Nitin Sampat, who was detained in bailable offenses but sent to Saat Rasta Lock-up and made to stay there overnight. The court noted that this violated Nitin's right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with dignity.

The judges further criticized the police's lack of knowledge of legal provisions and judgments regarding granting bail, highlighting their insensitivity to fundamental rights. They stressed that the emphasis should be on granting bail, even in non-bailable offenses, except in heinous cases.

While accepting an unconditional apology from the police officers involved, the court made it clear that it deemed it necessary and imperative to award costs to Nitin for the officers' brazen acts. The court's order includes compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid to Nitin within six weeks and the appointment of an inquiry officer to investigate the incidents and conduct of the police officers involved.

In addition, the court directed the State to issue appropriate guidelines/directions to Police Stations concerning the grant of bail in bailable offenses, emphasizing the need for the protection of citizens' constitutional rights.

This judgment serves as a reminder that justice, accountability, and the protection of individual rights must always be at the forefront of legal proceedings, even when the violators are state instrumentalities.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2023

Neelam Nitin Sampat   vs State of Maharashtra

Latest Legal News