In a criminal writ petition challenging alleged illegal detention, the High Court examined the police affidavit showing the petitioner was detained for inquiry under Section 33(W) of the Bombay Police Act. Finding no case for compensation, the court rejected the petition.
None. The petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 2009.
Anil Parshuram Naik
.. Petitioner
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra
& Others .. Respondents
Mr.Suhas Devkar for the Petitioner.
Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for State.
CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE &
R.Y.GANOO, JJ.
Dated : 3rd NOVEMBER, 2009
P.C. :
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner. We have perused the affidavit in
reply filed by Shri Shridhar Anchate, Inspector of
Police from Saki Naka Police Station, Mumbai.
2. The petitioner was the manager of the country
2
liquor bar and he alleges that on the night of
22.3.2009 he closed the bar at about 11.45 p.m.
and at around 00.30 hours he was picked up by the
police and taken to Dharavi Police Station. He
was detained for about 3 ½ hours illegally and
therefore he prays for compensation.
3.The affidavit filed by the Inspector of
Police, states that on 23.3.2009 at about 2.20
a.m. the Station Duty Officer of Dharavi Police
Station was on duty and it was brought to his
knowledge that the petitioner had kept the bar
open beyond the time prescribed and therefore he
was brought to the police station and inquiry was
made. Action was taken by the Station Duty
Officer under Section 33(W) of the Bombay Police
Act and the petitioner was called upon to depoist
the bond of Rs.5000/-. The owner of the bar
arrived at the police station, deposited the
amount and the petitioner was released. The
petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.6173/H/2009
3
presently pending before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 9th Court at Bandra.
4.We are therefore satisfied that no is case
made out for directions to pay the compensation,
hence the petition fails and the same is hereby
rejected.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for alleged illegal detention by the police.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Parshuram Naik
The State of Maharashtra
B.H. Marlapalle
R.Y. Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court