NARESHKUMAR BASANTILAL PALVIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are practising doctors have made the following prayers:---

(2.) THE factual matrix (as per the averments made in this writ petition) from which this petition arises in short is as under:---

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Raja Thakare for the petitioners and Ms. Aruna Kamath, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Raja Thakare emphatically urged that since the offence under section 304a IPC was a bailable offence and the petitioners were prepared to furnish bail, PSI Bagwan was under a obligatory duty in view of section 436 of Cri. P. C. to forthwith grant bail to the petitioners and his failure to do so and his confining them in custody instead at the police station has resulted in infraction of their fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently he urged that the prayer for compensation in the circumstances was just and reasonable. On the converse, Ms. Kamath appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has strenuously urged that since the respondent No. 2 acted in good faith in terms of section 159 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 the prayer for directing him and the other respondents to pay compensation is misconceived.