₹5 Lakh compensation awarded to police constable illegally detained in bailable offence; MP High Court slams violation of BNSS mandates.

The petitioner, a Police Constable, was implicated in Crime No. 52/2025 at Police Station Kailaras for offences under Sections 308(7) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

He was arrested on February 12, 2025. Despite Section 308(7) BNS being classified as a bailable offence under the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the petitioner's expressed readiness to furnish bail bonds, Respondent No. 4 (the arresting officer) detained him in a police lock-up for over twenty-four hours.

The petitioner was produced before a Magistrate on February 13, 2025, who granted him bail and questioned the legality of the detention.

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition seeking a declaration of illegal arrest and public law compensation for violation of Article 21.

1. Whether Respondent No. 4 was legally justified in arresting and detaining the petitioner in connection with a bailable offence under the BNSS.

2. Whether such detention constitutes an infringement of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation under public law for the alleged illegal detention.

The court primarily applied Section 47(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates that an officer arresting a person for a bailable offence must inform them of their right to be released on bail.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects personal liberty from deprivation except by procedure established by law.

The principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI regarding the mandate against unnecessary arrests and the power of constitutional courts to award monetary compensation for violations of Article 21.

The court reasoned that the statutory obligation under Section 47(2) of the BNSS is mandatory and designed to safeguard personal liberty; it serves to prevent unnecessary confinement in bailable offences.

The court rejected the State's contention that compliance with Article 22(2) (production before a Magistrate within 24 hours) cured the illegality, stating that such production is an outer constitutional safeguard and cannot dilute the specific statutory protection requiring immediate release in bailable matters.

Since the respondents provided no material to rebut the fact that the offence was bailable and the petitioner was ready to provide bail, the court found the detention lacked the authority of law.

Consequently, the failure to adhere to the mandatory procedures of the BNSS resulted in a direct infringement of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21.

The court held that the deprivation of liberty without following the procedure established by law necessitates a remedy in public law compensation.

Respondents No. 1 to 4 were directed to pay the petitioner Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation within eight weeks. Furthermore, the State was granted liberty to recover this amount from the erring officer following a departmental enquiry and an opportunity for a hearing.