Bombay HC Finds Police-Developer Collusion Behind Son-In-Law’s Illegal Arrest Over Mother-In-Law’s Flat Deal, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation

The Petitioner, acting as power-of-attorney holder for his mother-in-law, was negotiating with developers over her flat in a society undergoing redevelopment.

On 4 August 2017, after receiving Rs. 2,00,000 from the developers during a meeting, he was arrested on a complaint alleging extortion under Section 384 of the IPC.

He alleged that the arrest preceded service of the Section 41-A CrPC notice and that his subsequent police and judicial remand orders were unsupported by reasons.

After obtaining bail, he petitioned under Article 226 seeking a declaration that the arrest was illegal, departmental action, and compensation.

The developers’ intervention application was also before the Court.

1. Whether the Petitioner’s arrest on 4 August 2017 was unlawful for non-compliance with Section 41-A CrPC and the principles governing arrest for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s continued detention was unlawful because the police and the Magistrate failed to justify the arrest and remand with proper reasons.

3. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to compensation and other relief for the unlawful arrest and detention.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant relief for unlawful arrest and detention.

Section 41-A CrPC requires that a person be given an opportunity to comply with a notice to appear; arrest following such notice must be supported by recorded reasons for non-compliance.

Under Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, arrest for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years is not automatic: the police must consider whether arrest is necessary and justify it by reference to the statutory requirements.

The Court also relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, stating that a person cannot be arrested merely to facilitate questioning; the officer must consider whether the investigation can proceed without custody.

The judgment further treats reasoned, independent judicial consideration of remand as necessary to prevent unjustified detention.

The Court found that the police records contained material inconsistencies, including alterations to the arrest form, missing information about the grounds of arrest and arrest intimation, and conflicting records concerning the complaint and medical examination.

It concluded that the Petitioner was arrested before receiving a genuine opportunity to comply with the Section 41-A notice, and that the police had not shown why custody was necessary or undertaken adequate inquiry into the circumstances of the payment.

The Court also found that the Magistrate had not recorded reasons demonstrating independent application of mind to the remand requests, resulting in continued unlawful detention.

It directed the State to pay him Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation within two weeks of uploading the judgment.

It further directed the State to initiate appropriate action, including consideration of suspension, against Respondent No. 2 and other concerned officers, and referred the judgment to the High Court’s Administrative Committee for appropriate action concerning the Magistrate(s) involved in the remand and bail proceedings.

The writ petition was allowed, and the intervention application was disposed of as no longer surviving.