Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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