SURESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for awarding of compensation on account of the illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner by the Karimnagar police station at Karimnagar (Andhra Pradesh). We may incidentally state here that notice of this petition had been issued to respondents and pursuant to the said notice respondents no.l, 2, 4,5 and 7 entered their appearance. The Officers of the Karimnagar police station, especially respondent nos.6, 8, respondent no.3 Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar and the Home Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e. respondent no.9 though served have chosen not to put in their appearance.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the petitioner was arrested on 23.1.1998 from his residence at Nanded and was carted all the way from Nanded to Karimnagar. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was detained till 31.1.1998 on which date the petitioner was permitted to leave the police station. During the aforesaid period the petitioner was neither produced before a Magistrate nor any remand order was obtained for continuing the detention of the petitioner. As pointed out by us above, though notice of this petition had been served on respondents no.3,6,8 and 9, the respondents have not turned in their appearance nor have they filed any affidavit in reply. Respondents no.4 & 5 who are Officers of Bhagyanagar police station, Nanded and who are alleged to have accompanied the Karimnagar police station for effecting the arrest of the petitioner, in the affidavit in reply contend that they had not accompanied the Karimnagar police station for effecting arrest. No steps had been taken by them in the process of arrest of the petitioner by the Karimnagar police station. Respondent no.7 contend that he was a Driver of a private vehicle which had been engaged by the officers of the Karimnagar police station for effecting the arrest of the petitioner. Therefore, according to respondent no.7 since he was neither member of the police staff nor is instrumental in effecting the arrest of the petitioner and his eventual illegal detention at Karimnagar, he is not liable.

(3.) Obviously, respondents no. 1,2,4 and 5 cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation on account of the illegal arrest and illegal detention of the petitioner by the Karimnagar police station. Similarly, respondent no.7 who was merely a Driver of the vehicle also cannot be saddled with the responsibility of paying compensation. Respondents no.3, 6, 8 and 9 though served with a notice of this Court have not entered their appearance in the present petition. The allegations against respondents no.3, 6, 8 and 9, therefore, are unrebutted.