BALASAHEB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition heard finally. The petitioner has filed the present petition, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) and seeking direction against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to take stern action against respondent No. 3, who according to the petitioner is responsible for his illegal detention in police custody, and his false implication in chapter proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner claims himself to be an active worker of Bharatiya Janta Party. It is his contention that the chapter proceeding No. 68/2005 was falsely initiated against him at the instance of respondent No. 3, on the basis of a single crime registered against him. It is his further contention that the said sole crime registered against him was also absolutely false, and he was no way involved in the said crime. It is his further contention that in the said chapter proceeding, though he was arrested at 10.00 am on 23-02-2005, he was not immediately produced before the Special Executive Magistrate and was illegally detained for more than twenty four hours, and was produced before the Magistrate at 3.30 pm on 24-02-2005. It is his grievance that respondent No. 3 violated the guide-lines laid down in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 AIR(SCW) 233), at the time of his arrest. It is his specific contention that no information regarding his arrest was given to any of his family members. It is his specific grievance that he was illegally detained and all of his Constitutional rights were violated. The petitioner has further alleged that while in custody of the police, he was tortured by respondent Nos. 3 & 4. He was inhumanely treated by the police, as if he was a habitual criminal offender. It is alleged that the photos of the petitioner were obtained by giving slate in his hand and while taking the petitioner to Ahmednagar he was paraded in Village Kolhar. The petitioner has further alleged that respondent Nos. 3 & 4, only with the intention to harass the petitioner pressed for the direction against the petitioner that he may be subjected to furnish bond in the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-(Rs. One Lakh twenty five thousand only), knowing well that if such direction is given, it may not be possible for the petitioner to comply the same immediately, and consequently, he will remain in jail till he furnishes the bond in the said amount. The petitioner has alleged that all the actions taken by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were with ulterior motive, high handed and arbitrary. The petitioner has alleged that the petitioner was unnecessarily arrested to tarnish his image in the society. The petitioner has, therefore, claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) from the respondents and has also prayed for an inquiry into the illegal acts allegedly committed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

(3.) On behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4, respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit-in-reply denying the allegations raised in the petition. Respondent No. 3 & 4 have taken a plea that considering the anti-social activities of the petitioner, it had become necessary for them to take some preventive action, and the same was taken against the petitioner under the orders of superior police officers, and while taking such action, the same has been taken within the four corners of law and strictly following the procedure laid down for the same. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have further contended that the petitioner was arrested at 3.30 PM on 23-02-2005, under Section 41 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereafter within twenty four hours was produced before the Special Executive Magistrate. It has also been contended that wife of the petitioner was present, when petitioner was produced before the Special Executive Magistrate. Respondents have justified their action in the affidavit-in-reply filed by them.