Bombay High Court
NANDKISHOR BHAUSAHEB JADHAV AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The investigating officer acted within the law; there was no illegal detention, and the petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners alleged that they were illegally detained in police custody from 16-17 May 2022 after being arrested under IPC sections 323, 504, 506 (non‑cognizable, bailable) and 143 (cognizable, bailable). They invoked Section 50 of the CrPC, claiming the investigating officer should have informed them of their right to bail and arranged for their release, and sought Rs. 50 lakh compensation. The State argued that a police officer may arrest a person for any cognizable offence, even if bailable, and that the officer correctly produced the petitioners before a magistrate who granted bail. The Court examined the statutory provisions and found that the arrest and subsequent production before the magistrate complied with law, noting no perverse or illegal act by the officer. Consequently, the Court declined to grant any relief or compensation and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether arrest and detention for a cognizable but bailable offence without informing the accused of bail rights under Section 50 CrPC amounts to illegal detention.
- Whether compensation can be awarded for such detention.
- Whether the police officer’s power to arrest for cognizable offences overrides the procedural requirement of Section 50 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 50
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 323, 504, 506
Subjects
- illegal detention
- bail
- Section 50 CrPC
- cognizable offence
- compensation
- police arrest
- Article 21
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41728-DB
923 wp 1002-22 .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
923 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2022
NANDKISHOR BHAUSAHEB JADHAV AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. S. P. Nimblkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
Date : 09/09/2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners are seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3
to take action against respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for their alleged illegal
detention in police custody from 16/05/2022 to 17/05/2022. The
petitioners have also sought compensation of Rs. 50 lakh for such
alleged illegal detention.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an offence was
registered against the petitioners under Sections 323, 504 and 506
read with Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him,
Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC are non-cognizable and bailable,
whereas Section 143 of the IPC is cognizable but bailable. Therefore,
VS Maind/ Page|1
923 wp 1002-22 .
relying upon Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned
counsel submits that the concerned Investigating Officer ought to have
informed the petitioners of their right to be released on bail and upon
their furnishing bail, ought to have released them. However, instead of
doing so, the Investigating Officer produced the petitioners before the
learned Magistrate, who thereafter released them on bail.
4. Per contra, learned APP submits that a police officer is empowered
to arrest a person who has committed a cognizable offence without a
warrant, even if the offence is bailable. So far as the question of bail is
concerned, learned APP submits that the concerned Investigating
Officer, after following due process of law, produced the petitioners
before the learned Magistrate, who thereafter released them on bail.
Thus, according to learned APP, the prescribed procedure was duly
followed and the Investigating Officer acted in accordance with the
provisions of law.
5. Admittedly, except Section 143 of the IPC, the other offences
levelled against the petitioners were non-cognizable and bailable.
Further, it cannot be disputed that a police officer is empowered to
arrest a person who is alleged to have committed a cognizable offence,
even if such offence is bailable.
VS Maind/ Page|2
923 wp 1002-22 .
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied upon the
judgment of this Court reported in AIROnline 2024 BOM 2014 in the
case of Sambhaji Achyutrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, wherein the concept of illegal arrest and detention was
considered and compensation of Rs.2 lakh was awarded against the
errant police officers. Learned counsel has particularly relied upon the
requirement under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., contending that where a
person is arrested in connection with a cognizable and bailable offence,
it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to inform such person of his
right to be released on bail and to make necessary arrangements for his
release on bail.
7. However, on going through the entire pleadings in the petition, we
find that there is no specific ground or reference to Section 50 of the
Cr.P.C. The petitioners have, on the contrary, primarily relied upon
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, it
appears that the reliance upon Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. has been taken
only at the stage of arguments, apparently with a view to seek
compensation from the State.
8. From the material placed on record, it appears that the
Investigating Officer arrested the petitioners in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law and thereafter produced them before the
VS Maind/ Page|3
923 wp 1002-22 .
learned Magistrate, from whom the petitioners were released on bail.
We do not find any perversity or illegality in the action of the concerned
Investigating Officer warranting interference by this Court or grant of
compensation to the petitioners.
9. In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant any relief in
favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
VS Maind/ Page|4
Checking your session…