Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Monday, ruled that a police officer violated constitutional safeguards by arresting a 70-year-old businessman without following mandatory legal procedures and directed the State to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for infringement on his personal liberty.A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita Mehta found that the arrest, carried out in a case registered at Ambazari police station, failed to comply with established Supreme Court guidelines and statutory safeguards under the code of criminal procedure. The court held the action amounted to breach of Article 21 of the Constitution.The Gandhi Nagar resident challenged his arrest through counsel PS Tiwari in a case filed by his daughter-in-law for allegedly outraging her modesty and other offences. He contended that despite responding to a notice issued by police, he was arrested without adherence to due process of law.Examining the record, the court noted that although a notice was issued to the petitioner, “it nowhere mentions the ground for arrest”. It further observed there was no arrest memorandum or proper documentation as mandated, nor any evidence that relatives were informed, in violation of procedural safeguards laid down in key Supreme Court rulings.Citing apex court precedents, the bench underscored that arrest in cognisable offences and punishable up to seven years is not automatic and must strictly meet criteria. “The police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing,” the court reiterated, adding any non-compliance directly impacts the legality of detention.The bench also stressed that constitutional courts are empowered to award compensation where fundamental rights are violated. Referring to established jurisprudence, it observed that monetary compensation serves as a remedy for unlawful deprivation of liberty and helps enforce accountability.While noting that a departmental inquiry already found misconduct and censured the police officer, the court held that this alone could not address the violation suffered by the petitioner and directed the govt to pay compensation within eight weeks, observing such liability falls on the State for actions of its officials.The bench made strong observations on the role of law enforcement, stating that “when the police is a violator of law, the punishment for such violation has to be proportionately stringent so as to have an effective deterrent.”
