Depriving a person of liberty can’t be left to whims of police: HC

Nagpur: Coming down heavily on the illegal detention of a father-son duo, Nagpur bench of Bombay high court slapped a fine of Rs2.20 lakh on a Wardha police inspector (PI). It also tersely observed that “depriving a person of his liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India can’t be left to the whims and wishes of the police officer”.
“If (illegal detention) is permitted, it would be conferring arbitrary and unbridled powers on the police authorities. Knowledge of the police officer about design to commit any cognisable offence by a person has to be reflected from the record, showing the details of proposed preventive action against that person,” the HC observed, before directing authorities to record its observations in the PI’s service book.
There was a dispute over petitioner Kishor Futane’s trusteeship, and his post as secretary at Shri Mirannath Maharaj Deosthan at Deoli in Wardha district. This was pending before the authorities under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act since 2013-14.
On December 25, 2013, a report was lodged at Deoli police station against Futane, alleging that he tried to break open the trust’s cupboard to take away documents. Another report was lodged on January 19, 2014, against him and his son Dr Indraprasad, claiming that they were examining trust documents in its office and also abused the complainant. After enquiry, the police authorities found that the offences were non-cognizable in both complaints.
On February 5, 2014, Deoli police inspector Dhananjay Sayare suddenly initiated action under Section 151 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and detained the father-son duo for over seven hours, before they were released by the executive magistrate.
Terming themselves as reputed citizens, the aggrieved petitioners moved HC contending that their detention was illegal and “abuse of power and authority” by Sayare and Burle.
The judges observed that police officer may take action as per CrPC Section 151(1) against a person only if he has knowledge of a design of commissioning of any cognisable offence, or if it appears to him that cognisable offence can’t be prevented unless preventive action is taken against the person who may commit it.
“The PI hasn’t pointed out anything from the record of having knowledge that the petitioners were designing to commit any cognisable offence. To say the least, the justification given for taking action as per CrPC is misleading and an attempt to cover up the illegal act. We find that the petitioners have suffered due to PI’s illegal and high handed action, which appears to be motivated,” the HC said.
WHAT HC SAID
* Petitioners suffered due to PI’s illegal & high handed action which appears to be motivated
* If (illegal detention) permitted, it would confer arbitrary & unbridled powers on police officers
* Police officer should have record of knowledge of design to commit cognisable offence
* Justification given for taking action as per CrPC is misleading & an attempt to cover up illegal act
* Except two reports against petitioners, nothing is placed on record to justify preventive action
* Petitioners should submit affidavit if they wish to donate Rs2.20 lakh to Mirannath Maharaj Trust