The High Court of Bombay on Oct 1 ruled that the arrest and detention of a man merely because he had not supplied receipts of payment from Adani Electricity was unjustified. It criticised the flimsy rationale for the arrest and the lack of due diligence by both the police and the magistrate who granted police custody without proper consideration. The Court ordered the State Govt to compensate the petitioner with ₹25,000 and directed a departmental inquiry into the conduct of the police officers involved.
Alex, a 42-year-old resident of Mumbai, had filed a petition seeking legal action against those responsible for his arrest and detention and demanded ₹50 crore in compensation for the trauma he suffered. His advocate Nitin S Satpute argued that his client’s arrest in connection with alleged offences punishable under Sections 135 and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act was unjustified. He emphasised that Alex had paid all electricity charges, including compounding fees, to Adani Electricity prior to his arrest, and the police had acted rashly by failing to verify this payment with the utility company.
Additional public prosecutor P P Shinde opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner was duly served a notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure on February 16, 2019, and again on January 22, 2020. Shinde claimed that Alex’s failure to go to the police station and produce the necessary documents led to his arrest on January 29, 2020.
The first informant, Anand Ashok Bhosale, senior manager at Adani Electricity, reported that an inspection on December 15, 2018, revealed that Alex had allegedly committed an electricity theft, resulting in a loss of ₹64,988.20 to the company. The court, however, noted that the petitioner had settled all dues by January 27, 2020, raising questions about the necessity of his arrest.
The division bench of justices Revati Dere and Prithviraj Chavan found the arrest “arbitrary and unwarranted”, declaring that the police had acted contrary to the provisions of law and criticised them for not verifying the payment from Adani Electricity before proceeding with the arrest. It also expressed concern over the magistrate’s failure to adequately assess the justification for the arrest. “As per the direction, even the magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate high court for authorising detention without recording reasons,” it said.
It said, the Court said that it was its duty to consider whether the reasons for deprivation of liberty were “rational, reasonable, or fanciful”. “It is the duty of the courts to ensure that the subjective satisfaction is on factual basis, meriting arrest and not on the whims or caprice of the investigating agency”.