CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR: The Aurangabad bench of Bombay excessive courtroom has ordered the complainant policeman and investigation officer to compensate a person arrested below a repealed legislation, calling the motion “unlawful” and a violation of his rights to private liberty.
The excessive courtroom on Oct 23 ordered the investigating officer, police inspector Narendra Padalkar, to pay Rs2 lakh, and the complainant, constable Pandit Tare, to pay Rs50,000 to petitioner Ashwinkumar Sanap (43).
Bhushan Dhawale, who represented Sanap in courtroom, mentioned he was arrested on Aug 6 below sections 66A and 66B of Info Know-how (IT) Act, regardless of Part 66A being declared unconstitutional within the 2015 Shreya Singhal vs Union of India judgment. The FIR, filed on June 27, 2024, additionally included Part 500 of IPC, a non-cognizable offence that requires a direct grievance to a Justice of the Peace. “It was after arresting Sanap and producing him earlier than the Justice of the Peace, the police realised that 66A and 66B weren’t relevant. They subsequently added 67A of the IT Act,” Dhawale mentioned.
The HC division bench, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar, noticed that “this arrest is made at midnight, it’s in complete violation of the non-public liberty enshrined below the Structure of India”.
Criticising Padalkar, the HC famous that “it’s past creativeness that earlier than the arrest, the investigating officer won’t apply his thoughts, as to that are the sections which can be invoked”.
It mentioned, “The realisation of the incorrect part, after the arrest of an individual, can be a suicide try by an investigating officer, as a result of he’s sure to observe the legislation earlier than and on the time of effecting arrest.”
The bench additional famous that even the Justice of the Peace didn’t train due diligence when offered with Sanap for custody. Citing the SC’s choices in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI, the HC noticed that each magistrates and investigating officers had been sure to evaluate if an arrest was justified earlier than granting custody.
Highlighting problems with procedural negligence, the courtroom mentioned Sanap was held even if “Part 67-A of the IT Act was by no means attracted, making an allowance for the information of the case”. The HC division bench famous that respondent Tare, Sanap’s former brother-in-law, lodged the FIR “with mala fide intention” due to a household dispute.
Sanap, who had separated from Tare’s sister, allegedly despatched a defamatory WhatsApp message to a relative. The courtroom noticed that as a result of WhatsApp “is end-to-end encrypted, the sender can not intend for a non-public message to be public, except the recipient forwards it”.
Addressing the implications for judicial integrity, the HC mentioned, “We deprecate such form of follow,” admonishing decrease courts. It expressed concern over an noticed development of magistrates “passing mechanical orders.” The HC ordered {that a} copy of the judgment be despatched to the superintendent of police, Hingoli, for overview and potential motion in accordance with SC tips within the case of Arnesh Kumar.
