Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed Maharashtra govt last week to pay ₹2lakh compensation to a 26-year-old Akola student within eight weeks, stating that police illegally detained him and violated his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.A division bench comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Raj Wakode partly allowed the petition filed by Vaibhav Raghuwanshi, who alleged two police officers forcibly picked him from his family-run hotel on March 4, 2024, detained him overnight and later falsely denied seizing his mobile phone. “The policemen exceeded their limits and erred in arresting the petitioner without following law,” the judges said.The judges said the conduct of the officers was particularly serious because police are entrusted with protecting law. “When police are violators of law, the punishment has to be proportionately stringent to have an effective deterrent and instil confidence in society,” the bench said. It also referred to Maharashtra Police motto — to protect good and to punish evil.Raghuwanshi, through counsel P S Tiwari and S R Kumbhalkar, told court he was at the hotel with his mother since his father and uncle were away. He alleged both police officers came around 7 pm, asked for his uncle, demanded money, abused him and his mother, snatched his phone and whisked him away in a police vehicle. He also alleged ₹50,000 was demanded for his release.A case was registered against Raghuwanshi on the same day under Essential Commodities Act after they found a domestic gas cylinder being used for commercial purposes.The court found the police record did not support key parts of the official version. It said no station diary, general diary or phone register entry substantiated the claim that officers received secret information before the raid. The court also found no material showing that grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner or that notices under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were issued before his arrest.The judges also noted that both officers had denied seizing Raghuwanshi’s phone, including in their affidavits. But a magistrate had rejected that claim and directed the investigating agency to return the phone. Later, a general diary entry showed the phone was at the police station. The bench said this established the officers made false statements before court.During departmental proceedings, one assistant inspector (API) was punished with withholding of one increment for one year, while the other inspector (PI) faced deduction of ₹1,500 from his monthly pension for two years. The departmental inquiry found misconduct in handling of the phone against the PI and failure to follow arrest safeguards.
