Bombay High Court

PRAKASH LALCHAND BORSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed as the arrest and detention were in accordance with legal procedure and not illegal.

Summary

The petitioner, Prakash Lalchand Borse, alleged that he was illegally detained by police on 5 May 2021 at Bhadgaon Police Station and sought a departmental inquiry against the arresting officer as well as compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The State contended that a FIR (No. 94/2021) had been lodged by the petitioner’s step‑daughter alleging that he was seeking sexual favours, and that a notice under Section 41(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. The investigating officer reported the grounds of arrest to the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner was produced before the magistrate on 6 May 2021 and was released on bail. The Court held that the arrest followed the statutory procedure and therefore could not be characterized as illegal detention. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s detention on 5 May 2021 amounted to illegal detention under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether a departmental proceeding against the police officer and compensation of Rs 5,00,000 are warranted.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41(1)(b)

Subjects

illegal detention
departmental inquiry
compensation
Criminal Procedure Code
Section 41
FIR
police arrest
bail

Judgment

                                     (1)
                                                     915 Cri.WP-261.2022.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2022

               PRAKASH LALCHAND BORSE
                       VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Ms. N.P. Paliwal, Advocate holding for Mr. Chaitanya
               Dharurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                    DATED       : 16th September, 2026

Per Court :

1.    Heard.

2.    The petitioner has claimed direction from respondent

No.2 to conduct departmental proceeding against the erring

officer responsible for illegal detention of the petitioner on

05.05.2021 at Bhadgaon Police Station.               Petitioner has also

sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for his such illegal

detention.

3.    However, from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the learned

A.P.P. and contents of the petition alongwith order passed by

this Court on 4th July 2022, it is evident that step daughter of

the petitioner had lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner on the

ground that he was asking for sexual favour and in that
                                (2)
                                                  915 Cri.WP-261.2022.odt
connection even notice under Section 41 (1) (b) of the Code of

Criminal    Procedure    was   also    issued     to      the   petitioner.

Moreover, it was also reported by the concerned Investigating

Officer to the concerned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),

Bhadgaon about the grounds of arrest. Thus, it appears that

the   concerned    Investigating      Officer,    after     lodging    FIR

No.94/2021     against   the   petitioner,       complied       the   legal

procedure before arresting him on 05.05.2021 and thereafter

the petitioner was produced on 06.05.2021 before the

concerned J.M.F.C. Bhadgaon who released him on bail.

4.    As such, from the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that

the Investigating Officer had illegally detained the petitioner

without following any legal procedure.           It is otherwise that,

later on ‘B’ Summary was filed in the aforesaid crime. But it is

clearly evident that the concerned police officer had already

followed legal procedure before arresting the petitioner.

5.    Under such circumstances, we do not find any substance

in the petition and it stands dismissed.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)               (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                  JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…