Rahul Ataria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22899
1 WP-11135-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 28 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11135 of 2025
RAHUL ATARIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of an appropriate writ declaring
the action of respondent No.4 in illegally arresting and detaining the
petitioner in connection with Crime No.52/2025 registered at Police Station
Kailaras, District Morena, for offences punishable under Sections 308(7) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner has further prayed for
grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of illegal detention
besides initiation of departmental proceedings against the erring police
officer.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
entire action of respondent No.4 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to
the mandate of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as well as the
constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 30-07-2026
16:33:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22899
2 WP-11135-2025
Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner is serving as a Police

Constable and came to be implicated during investigation merely on the
basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused. Thereafter, respondent
No.4 arrested the petitioner on 12.02.2025 in connection with Crime
No.52/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 308(7) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Learned counsel submits that even assuming the
allegations contained in the FIR to be correct, the offence under Section
308(7) BNS is specifically shown as a bailable offence under the First
Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Therefore, the police
officer had no authority to keep the petitioner behind bars after his arrest. It
is argued that Section 47(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita casts
a mandatory obligation upon the arresting officer to inform an accused
arrested in a bailable offence that he is entitled to be released on bail and that
he may arrange for bail. The statutory provision nowhere contemplates that
the accused must first be remanded to judicial custody or kept in police lock-
up until being produced before the Magistrate. Rather, the legislative intent is
to secure immediate restoration of liberty subject only to execution of the
requisite bond. Learned counsel further submits that in the facts of the
present case, the petitioner was repeatedly requesting the respondent No.4
that the alleged offence was bailable and that he was prepared to furnish the
necessary bail bond. Despite such request, respondent No.4 neither released
the petitioner nor informed him about his statutory right. Instead, the
petitioner was illegally detained inside the police station for more than
twenty-four hours and was produced before the learned Magistrate only on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 30-07-2026
16:33:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22899
3 WP-11135-2025
the following day. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate, while

enlarging the petitioner on bail on 13.02.2025, also sought an explanation
from the SHO as to under what authority the petitioner had been arrested and
detained in a bailable offence. Despite such judicial direction, no satisfactory
explanation was furnished by the concerned police officer. Learned counsel
submits that once the illegal detention is established, violation of Article 21
automatically follows. The right to personal liberty is one of the most
cherished fundamental rights and any deprivation thereof except in
accordance with procedure established by law gives rise to a constitutional
remedy of public law compensation. Learned counsel further placing
reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar
vs. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, learned counsel
contended that constitutional courts are empowered to award monetary
compensation where illegal arrest or unlawful detention results in violation
of Article 21. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to
compensate the petitioner by payment of Rs.5,00,000/- together with liberty
to recover the amount from the erring officer after holding departmental
enquiry.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the writ petition
and submitted that the petitioner was arrested during investigation on the
basis of material collected by the investigating agency and the arrest was
made in discharge of official duties. It is submitted that the investigation was
at a crucial stage and the investigating officer bona fide believed that
custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary. Learned Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 30-07-2026
16:33:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22899
4 WP-11135-2025
Advocate further submitted that the question whether the investigating

officer properly exercised his statutory discretion or committed any
procedural irregularity is essentially an administrative matter which can
appropriately be examined departmentally. Accordingly, dismissal of the
writ petition has been prayed for.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. The principal question requiring consideration is whether respondent
No.4 was legally justified in arresting and detaining the petitioner in
connection with a bailable offence and whether such detention amounts to
infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. The pleadings placed before this Court
reveal that the petitioner was arrested on 12.02.2025 in connection with
Crime No.52/2025 and continued in police custody till he was produced
before the learned Magistrate on 13.02.2025. The petitioner has specifically
pleaded that the alleged offence was bailable and that despite his readiness to
furnish bail bonds, respondent No.4 neither informed him of his statutory
entitlement nor released him on bail. These assertions remain unrebutted by
any material justifying such continued detention.
6. Section 47(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
unequivocally provides that when a person is arrested for a bailable offence,
the arresting officer shall inform him that he is entitled to be released on bail.
The statutory obligation is mandatory in nature and is intended to safeguard
personal liberty. The purpose of the provision would stand defeated if an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 30-07-2026
16:33:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22899
5 WP-11135-2025
accused in a bailable offence is unnecessarily confined in police custody and

produced before the Magistrate only after prolonged detention.
7. This Court is unable to accept the contention of the respondents that
merely because the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within
twenty-four hours, the constitutional mandate stood satisfied. Compliance
with Article 22(2) cannot be read in isolation so as to dilute the statutory
protection available in respect of bailable offences. Production before the
Magistrate within twenty-four hours is the outer constitutional safeguard.
However, where the offence itself is bailable, the investigating officer cannot
ignore the legislative command requiring release of the accused on
furnishing the requisite bail bond.
8. The record further indicates that the learned Magistrate, while
enlarging the petitioner on bail, deemed it necessary to seek an explanation
from the SHO regarding the legality of arrest in a bailable offence. This
circumstance lends considerable support to the petitioner's grievance that the
statutory safeguards were ignored. Personal liberty occupies a paramount
position under our constitutional framework.
9. In the present case, this Court finds that respondent No.4 failed to
adhere to the mandatory statutory procedure governing arrest in a bailable
offence. The petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty without authority
of law. Such action constitutes a clear infringement of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Having regard to the nature of the constitutional violation, the
period of unlawful detention, and the settled principles governing award of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 30-07-2026
16:33:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22899
6 WP-11135-2025
public law compensation, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of

justice would be met by directing the respondents to compensate the
petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The arrest and continued detention of the petitioner in
connection with Crime No.52/2025, despite the offence being
bailable, are declared to be illegal and violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
(ii) Respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to pay compensation
of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
(iii) It shall be open to the State Government, after holding
an appropriate departmental enquiry in accordance with law and
after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned officer,
to recover the compensation amount from the delinquent officer if
responsibility is established.
11. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
12. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR
Signing time: 30-07-2026
16:33:07