In a significant order on premature arrests, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court said no person could be arrested merely on allegations of committing some offence whose genuineness was not even cleared or checked by the police.
The Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Shyam Chandak, in a judgment on August 22, that was made available on August 27, made these observations on the illegal arrest of a Thane-based journalist Abhijit Arjun Padale. Mr. Padale was arrested on charges of extortion and criminal intimidation, both of which provide for a maximum punishment of up to four years and three years, respectively.
“The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person,” the Bench observed.
The judges also noted, “No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person his/her liberty is a serious matter.”
The Bench directed the Maharashtra government to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 to the journalist within 10 weeks from the date of uploading the judgment and order on the official website of the High Court for keeping him deprived from his right to liberty in prison for three days.
Inquiry ordered
The High Court also asked the Mumbai Commissioner of Police to appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, to conduct an inquiry regarding the arrest of the journalist and conduct of the police officers of the Vakola police station. The probe needs to be completed within eight weeks.
In his petition, Mr. Padale sought the High Court to declare his arrest and detention in the case as illegal as before arresting him, the police did not issue any notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Bench noted, “The existence of the notice under Section 41A is sufficient to presume that the arrest of the petitioner was not at all warranted.”
The petitioner was arrested by the Vakola police station in Mumbai under Sections 384 (extortion) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on January 15, 2022, within a few hours of the registration of the crime. He was produced before the magistrate court in Andheri on January 16, and it was noted that the petitioner was arrested in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and was then remanded in magistrate’s custody. Mr. Padale moved a bail application, however, due to the non-availability of the prosecutor, he was kept in custody till January 18, 2022, when the regular magistrate granted him bail.
“The offences alleged against the petitioner are non-bailable but not punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years, and as such notice under Section 41A ought to have been served on the petitioner. Even though the notice under Section 41A was allegedly prepared, it was not served upon the petitioner before arresting him. Existence of the notice under Section 41A is sufficient to presume that the arrest of the petitioner was not at all warranted,” the judges noted.
The Bench said all the actions in the case were done in a mechanical and casual manner and they were in “stark violation” of the mandates of the CrPC and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar.
The Bench, therefore, held that the arrest of the journalist was not legal. “Because of the arrest, the petitioner had to go to jail and wait for bail,” the court said.
