Bombay High Court
SURAJ ANIL PATELversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The petition is dismissed as there was no illegal detention by the police.
Summary
Suraj Anil Patel filed a criminal writ petition seeking Rs.10,00,000 compensation for alleged illegal detention from 22.08.2021 to 23.08.2021. The petitioner had been charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a bailable warrant was ordered on 08.03.2021 after he failed to appear. By mistake, an arrest warrant was issued on 09.08.2021, leading to his arrest on 23.08.2021 and custody until 06.09.2021, after which he was released. The Court held that the police officer acted pursuant to the warrant and therefore did not illegally detain the petitioner. It also noted that the magistrate who issued the bailable warrant had been deleted from service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of substance.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was illegally detained despite the issuance of an arrest warrant issued in error.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the period of detention.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138
Subjects
- illegal detention
- compensation
- bailable warrant
- arrest warrant
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- criminal writ petition
- magistrate
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43526-DB
915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1440 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1440 OF 2022
Suraj Anil Patel
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
__________________________________________________________
• Adv. Bhosale Mahesh Kalidas for the Petitioner
• Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut, A.P.P. for State
• Adv. Anil M. Gaikwad for Respondent No. 3
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
PER COURT :
1) Heard.
2) The petitioner is seeking compensation to the
tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for his illegal detention from
22.08.2021 to 23.08.2021.
3) However, after going through the record, the
undisputed facts are as under: There was a complaint
against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, wherein summons was served upon
the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to appear on the
given date, the concerned Magistrate, i.e. respondent no. 4,
who has subsequently been deleted, had issued bailable
warrant against the petitioner on 08.03.2021. However, it
seems that instead of issuance of bailable warrant against
Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2
915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1440 OF 2022
the petitioner, arrest warrant was issued against him on
09.08.2021, pursuant to which he was arrested on
23.08.2021. The record shows that he was immediately
produced before the concerned Magistrate, who had taken
him in magisterial custody till 06.09.2021, but in fact
released him on the same day.
4) Though it appears that pursuant to the order of
issuance of bailable warrant, by mistake, arrest warrant
was issued against the petitioner, but the concerned
serving officer must have followed the order of the Court
while executing the arrest warrant.
5) Under such circumstances, it cannot be said
that the concerned police officer had illegally detained the
petitioner. Further, it is important to note that respondent
no. 4, i.e. the concerned Magistrate who had issued the
bailable warrant against the petitioner, is already deleted at
the instance of the petitioner under order dated
19.10.2022. Therefore, considering all this, we do not find
any substance in the present criminal writ petition and the
same stands dismissed accordingly.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 2
Checking your session…