PRABHAKAR PARSHURAM SAMANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, three in number, have filed this writ petition for the relief of adequate compensation from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for a direction to penalise the respondents suitably on the following allegations:

(2.) PETITIONER nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers while petitioner no. 3 is their maternal uncle. Petitionernos. 1 and 2 have their business of sale and purchase of wood. S. no. 696 hissa a no. 6 at village Insuli, Taluka Sawantwadi, is owned by petitioner No. 3. It appears that there was some cutting of trees in the land. Shri Fernandes adjoining land owner raised some dispute about the ownership of the land on which the trees stood and that was on 6-3-1989. The respondent no. 4 happened to be the police patil of the village and on 7th March 1989 a panchanama appears to have been made in respect of the cutting of trees. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were allowed to take away the wood of the trees. It appears that on a complaint having been made by Shri Fernandes the matter was taken up by the police on 21st March 1989 stating therein that out of his land bearing S. No. 196 hissa a nos. 3 and 7, petitioners had cut Ayin and Kinjal trees. The complaint was enquired into by head constable Shri Gonsalvis, who recorded the statements of the complainant and the petitioner no. 2 and at that time it was agreed between the parties that they will measure the land and will pay compensation after deciding whether the trees were in the land of the applicant or in the land of said Luis. Payment was to be made to the concerned owner after ascertaining the above fact. This is to be found in the affidavit filed by P. S. I. Sawant at page 40. Inspite of this it appears that the petitioners apprehended that they would be under arrest and therefore they applied for anticipatory bail in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi and on 28th March 1989 succeeded in getting the order of anticipatory bail. The order directed that the present petitioners be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 500 with suerty in like amount in the event of their arrest by police station Banda in connection with the complaint by Fernandes. It was also directed by the order that the petitioners shall attend the Banda Police Station on every Sunday between 12 to 4 hrs until further orders and the applicants were directed to give necessary cooperation to the police in the matter of investigation. That order was passed on 28th March 1989. It appears that the petitioners have been thereafter attending the police station as directed.

(3.) PETITIONERS, grievance is that inspite of this offence came to be registered on 15th June 1989 under sections 447 and 379 of the I. P. C. On 21st June 1989 petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 came to be not arrested by the Banda police station at 2 p. m. and the police head constable respondent no. 3 was the person who was at the police station and who effected the arrest. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they were threatened that they would be arrested and even bribe amount was pas demanded from them. The petitioners further contended that inspite of the fact that the police were informed about the anticipatory bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, they were not enlarged on bail and were in fact paraded to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawantwadi 15 k. m. away handcuffed and carried, in the S. T. Bus. It has to be noted that this allegation that they were not enlarged on bail and su taken a distance of 15 k. m. to Sawantwadi Judicial Magistrates Court from the place of arrest, is not only not denied but specifically admitted by the police head constable who has filed his affidavit in this petition. It is his contention that he was not aware of the bail order and the same was not shown to him. Petitioners have averred in their petition that they have all along been telling the police officers that the court has passed the bail order directing their release on bail in the event of their arrest and they have been attending the police station as per the direction given in that order, yet the police officers took no note of the same and on the contrary told the petitioners that they would not be released on bail. Petitioners request to allow them to see their advocate was also rejected by the police officers and the police also threatened the petitioners that if their advocate comes to release them, they will also arrest petitioners advocate. Petitioners were kept, according to their averments, by the respondents, illegally in the lock up on 21-6-1989 and. on 22-6-1989. The respondents handcuffed the petitioners and brought the petitioners in that position through Banda Bazarpetb and brought the petitioners by S. T. bus Sawantwadi and produced them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawantwadi at about 4 p. m. on 22-6-1989. They asked for remand also.