Smacks Of Police High Handedness: Bombay High Court Directs Enquiry Against Police Officers For Making Arrest Without Authorisation; Imposes ₹1L Costs
The High Court held that the arrest of an individual is a serious matter, and police officers must exercise the power to arrest with restraint, responsibility, and in accordance with the law.
Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice Sandesh D. Patil, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court declared the arrest of a person by officers of the Bandra Police Station as illegal and without lawful authority, directing the State to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to him and ordered a departmental enquiry against the concerned officers.
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking a declaration that the arrest made by officers of the Bandra Police Station was unlawful, while also seeking compensation for the humiliation and stigma faced by the petitioner as a result of the arrest.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sandesh D. Patil held that the arrest had been carried out “in a colourable exercise of power”. While making these observations, the Bench remarked: “We, as Constitutional Courts cannot be oblivious to the same. Arrest of an individual is a serious matter. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts scars forever. The Apex Court has time and again frowned on unnecessary arrests even in non-bailable offences.”
Senior Advocate Abad Ponda represented the petitioner. P.P. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, a resident of Karnataka, was engaged in a partnership business dealing with perfume oils. Following a dispute with his partner, he had formally retired from the firm over a decade before the filing of an FIR. However, an FIR was later registered at Bandra Police Station under Sections 406, 420, 465, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which were punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.
Records produced before the Court revealed that senior police officers had authorised registration of the FIR only under the aforementioned sections. Nevertheless, the investigating officers unilaterally added Section 409 IPC, without any sanction or approval from their superiors. The inclusion of Section 409 resulted in the petitioner’s arrest in Karnataka and subsequent police custody for nearly 20 days.
The petitioner contended that the addition of Section 409 was done deliberately to bypass the mandate of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as defined by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar, requiring notice before arrest in offences punishable with less than seven years.
Court’s Observation
Upon examining the file notes and approvals leading to the registration of the FIR, the Bombay High Court noted that the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police had sanctioned registration only under Sections 406, 420, 465, and 477A of the IPC.
Observing that the inclusion of Section 409 was neither authorised nor justified by the record, and that the arrest had been carried out without compliance with procedural safeguards, the Bench remarked that “it was absolutely improper and illegal on the part of the respondent officers to invoke Section 409 unilaterally, without seeking permission of the superiors”.
Citing Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., in which the Apex Court had held that “the police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so”, the High Court reiterated that while the power to arrest exists, its exercise must be justified by necessity and reasonableness.
The Court also referred to Satinder Kumar Antil v. CBI, reiterating that “Section 41 and Section 41A are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the investigating agencies are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code”.
In the present case, the Court found that the officers had acted contrary to the law and had misused their powers, resulting in the unlawful detention of the petitioner, holding that the arrest violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty and dignity, warranting judicial intervention and compensation.
Conclusion
Holding the arrest to be illegal and without lawful authority, the Bombay High Court directed the State Government to pay ₹1,00,000 to the petitioner within six weeks.
The Court further ordered the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct a departmental inquiry into the arrest and recover the compensation amount from the salary of the officers found responsible after the inquiry.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the matter was listed again on December 04, 2025, for recording compliance.
Cause Title: Vasantha Perampally Nayak v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 BHC-AS-41975-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Abad Ponda, Senior Advocate with Advocates Dhruti Chheda and Anukul Seth.
Respondents: P.P. Shinde, Additional Public Prosecutor; Advocates Faisal Shaikh, Shailendra Agharkar, Rashid Sayyed, Omkar Shah.