Skip to main content

Police Officers fined for not giving bail in a bailable offence

Bombay High Court has come down heavily on police officers for illegally detaining two doctors for more than two weeks in connection with a crime which was bailable. Division Bench comprising of Justices Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai directed the Commissioner of Police to enquire into the matter of illegal detention and to take disciplinary action against the erring police officers. Costs of Rs. 50,000 was also directed to be paid to the doctors, which is to be borne by the errant police officers themselves. In this case, allegation against these doctors, who were brothers of the main accused, was that they cheated the complainant by giving false promise of marriage and thereby calling it off. The main accused was also charged with Section 376 IPC.  All of them were arrested on 7th June 2015 and despite directions of the High Court to consider their bail applications expeditiously, the Sessions Court failed to do so. They were finally released on 24th June 2015 following direction of the High Court. The Court said that it is indeed a matter of great concern that despite the offence being bailable, the Investigating agency, the Judicial Magistrate as well  as the Sessions Court were responsible for detaining the accused in   custody   from   7.6.2015   to   24.6.2015   in   total  contravention of the directions of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar case, and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The Court has also directed an enquiry against the erring police officer and judicial officer in this regard. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused except the charge under Section 376 IPC against the main accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1252 OF 2015
1. Bharat Devdan Salvi Age 27 years, Occ: Business, res. at Sarita Sangam Apartment, Kasarwadi, Pune.2. Smt. Teressa Devdan Salvi, Age 48 years, Occ: Household, R/at. Sarita Sangam Apartment, Kasarwadi, Pune3. Mary Ajay Kumawat Age 29 years, Occ: Doctor, res. at Man, Hinjewadi, Pune4. Shri Ajay Govind Kumawat Age 34 years, Occ: Doctor, res. at Man, Hindewadi, Pune.5. Shri Annasaheb Shankar Jadhav  Age 47 years, Occ: Agriculturist, Res. at Newasa, Ahmednagar6. Shri Madhukar Motiram Salvi, Age 52 years, Res. at Newasa, Ahmednagar7. Sou. Paridhan Madhukar Salvi, Age 52 years, Occ: Household, Res. at Newasa, Ahmednagar ..Petitioners (Org. Accused )  v/s

1. The State of Maharashtra through Senior Police Inspector, Bhosari Police Station, Bhosari, Pune.2. Miss Luisa Petaras Jadhav, Age adult, Occ: Household, res. of Nyay Nagar, Galli No.8, Ghar No.444, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad..RespondentsMs. Kshitija G. Sarangi for the Petitioner.Mr.S.S.Shinde, PP a/w. Mrs. S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent/State.Mr. Satyavrat Joshi for the Respondent No.2
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
21 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
10 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le...
1 comment
Read more