'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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