Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to compensate a police officer with Rs 2 lakh for his “illegal arrest” and detention for 20 hours by a senior officer.
The bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and RS Patil was hearing a petition filed by Sambhaji Patil from Satara, who worked as a police inspector. It said that the government can recover compensation from the responsible police officers if it wants..
Sambhaji argued his case in person before the bench. He was investigating the murder case of wrestler Sanjay Patil, who had won the prestigious Maharashtra Kesari title.
Sanjay Patil was shot dead at a market in Karad in Satara district by two assailants on January 15, 2009. Udaysinh Patil, son of former Maharashtra Law Minister Vilasrao Patil, allegedly hired contract killers to kill Sanjay as he had contested the market committee election against Udaysinh’s father and won.
Sambhaji Patil, as an investigation officer in the case, had filed a chargesheet in April 2009 and was to file another chargesheet. However, he was transferred from Karad City Police Station to the Satara Crime Branch Satara on administrative grounds.
The investigation was subsequently transferred to two other police officers and a year later, an Additional Superintendent of Police questioned Sambhaji Patil about the case.
Sambhaji went to the office of the senior officer in January and March 2013, but was put under house arrest by the then Additional Superintendent of Police of Satara, Amol Tambe.
He was later produced in court in March 2013, where it was found that Sambhaji was not involved in either the conspiracy or murder of Sanjay and was granted bail by the court.
Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Patil and Advocate Ramprasad Gupta, appearing for then Superintendent of Police of Satara, argued that the Maharashtra government had conducted an inquiry and found no illegality in the arrest of Patil, and so he was not entitled to any relief in his petition.
Advocates Shekhar Jagtap and Sairuchita Chowdhary, appearing for the then Additional Superintendent of Police of Satara, pointed out that Patil had also approached the State Human Rights Commission, but was not granted any relief.
The bench observed that the arrest of Sambhaji was on account of the alleged faulty investigation carried out by him and he was thus only discharging his official duty when he was investigating the case. Under such circumstances, the police personnel needed to take sanctions to prosecute Sambhaji.
However, the bench observed that Sambhaji was arrested without obtaining the necessary consent of the state government. It further said that Sambhaji’s arrest memo didn’t indicate the particulars of the offence or grounds of arrest had either been mentioned or had been conveyed to him.
The bench said that in case the arrest of an accused is imperative, the arresting officer must clearly record the reasons for the arrest of the accused before the arrest in the case diary.
In exceptional cases where it becomes imperative to arrest the accused immediately, the reasons could be recorded in the case diary immediately after the arrest is made without loss of any time.
However, in Sambhaji Patil’s case, he had been called to answer some questions, and the case record did not indicate that it was an exceptional case where it became imperative for the investigation officer to him immediately, the court said.
