Man’s arrest despite having paid electricity charges ‘unwarranted’: HC; orders compensation

PTI, Oct 8, 2024, 3:26 PM IST

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has held as “arbitrary and unwarranted” the arrest of a man despite he having paid the electricity charges in an alleged power theft case, and directed the Maharashtra government to pay him a compensation of Rs 25,000.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan in their judgment of October 1 also directed the Mumbai police commissioner to conduct a departmental inquiry with respect to the man’s arrest by officers of the RCF police station in suburban Chembur.

The police should have verified if the petitioner had made the payment instead of arresting him arbitrarily, the court said in its order, a copy of which was made available on Tuesday.

Alex, a social worker, was accused by Adani Electricity of tampering with electric meters and taking unauthorised direct supply of power to his house in Chembur, thus causing a loss of Rs 64,000 to the power company.

The man, in his plea, said pursuant to the FIR lodged in 2018, he had assured police that he would make the payment and by January 2020 made all necessary payments, including the compounding charges.

However, on January 29, 2020, the RCF police arrested Alex without verifying if he had made the payment.

The bench in its order said the police ought to have verified if the payment was made by Alex, instead of arresting him arbitrarily.

“We find that the arrest of the petitioner was not only uncalled for by the police but was a rash act, contrary to the provisions of law,” the high court said.

The reasons for arresting the petitioner were “flimsy and contrary to law”, the HC said and further noted that even the magistrate who remanded the petitioner to one-day police custody failed in his duty to consider whether the arrest was justified.

“Magistrates are not mute spectators, but are courts of first instance, before whom the accused are produced. It is their bounden duty to uphold the law and protect the liberty of an individual from arbitrary arrest,” the bench said.

The HC said the “unwarranted and arbitrary” arrest of the petitioner has resulted in mental agony and hence it directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 within six weeks.

Not only the petitioner’s arrest was without any justification but even the order passed by a local court remanding him to one day police custody was without application of mind, it said.

“It is the duty of the court to consider whether the reasons for deprivation of liberty are 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,” the HC said.

Not only the police but even the magistrate’s court had without any application of mind granted one day’s police custody of the petitioner, the bench said.

“It is the duty of every magistrate, when an accused is produced before him/her, to ensure that the provisions of law have been duly complied with and whether police custody in those given facts, is warranted,” it said.

Alex had in his plea sought legal action against the errant officials of the RCF police station for illegally arresting him and also sought a compensation of Rs 50 crore for violation of his fundamental rights.

The police claimed they issued notice to the petitioner in 2019 itself and then again in 2020 seeking information of the payment made. But when he did not submit the relevant documents, the police arrested him.

Alex in his plea claimed he sent a reply to the police’s 2019 notice, stating he was ready to pay the electricity charges, and in reply to the 2020 notice also assured to produce all relevant documents to show payment of the charges.

However, despite this, he was arrested on January 29, 2020 and released on bail on January 30.

The bench noted that at the time of his arrest, neither Adani Electricity nor the petitioner himself submitted documents to the police to show that the payment was made.

However, the HC said the question that arises is whether the petitioner was required to be arrested in such a case.

The court perused documents and noted the entire payment, including compounding charges, was made by the petitioner by January 27, 2020.

“In the facts, we do not think it was necessary for the police to arrest the petitioner, since payment was made. The police ought to have given some time to the petitioner to produce the receipts in question,” the court said.