Nagpur Bench Of Bombay HC Terms Re-arrest Of Arun Thomas Outside Nagpur Jail As Illegal, Granting Rs 2 Lakh Compensation
It stands perfectly justified and is absolutely in order that while cracking the whip, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement titled Arun Thomas Ferreira v. State of Maharashtra & Ors in CNR No: HCBM040203522012 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 467 of 2012 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:BHC-NAG:14604-DB that was reserved on 28.09.2026 and then finally pronounced on 27.10.2026 has minced absolutely just no words in terming the September 2011 re-arrest of activist Arun Thomas Ferreira as illegal and has directed the State of Maharashtra to pay him Rs 2 lakh in compensation. Arun is also one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case of 2018 and is presently out on bail. It stands entirely justified that the Court slammed the police for branding an undertrial as ‘absconding’ while he was detained in jail and held that the arrest in an unmarked car violated constitutional safeguards.
Background of Arun Thomas Ferreira’s Re-arrest
It merits noting that Arun had filed a petition in which he challenged his sudden arrest on September 27, 2011, after he walked out of Nagpur Central Prison following his acquittal in several cases. Quite astoundingly, the plainclothes police officers seized him and forced him into an unmarked vehicle. His mother, brother and lawyer were also present at the scene of his being seized.
Police Failure To Communicate The Grounds Of Arrest
Most astonishingly, the officers did not inform them of the grounds for his detention. The State forwarded the argument that secrecy was necessary because of alleged Naxal links. The Division Bench rejected this specious argument and explicitly mandated that the constitutional duty to give reasons for an arrest applies without exception.
Constitutional Rights Under Articles 21 And 22
For the uninitiated, it must be noted that the Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Ms Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Hon’ble Mr Justice Raj D Wakode, who authored this pragmatic, progressive and pertinent judgement, explicitly held that police violated Ferreira’s rights under Articles 21 (right to liberty) and 22 (protection against arrest and detention) of the Constitution and censured the police officers. It was underscored by the Division Bench holding unambiguously that, “When the police persons are violators of the law whose primary responsibility is to protect the law, the punishment for such violation has to be proportionately stringent so as to have an effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the society.”
Bombay High Court Orders Rs 2 Lakh Compensation
It was held that the arrest violated Ferreira’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 and directed the State of Maharashtra to deposit Rs 2 lakh in compensation within 8 weeks. It was also added by the Division Bench that Ferreira can file a civil suit if he seeks a higher amount. Very rightly so!
Judgement Of The Nagpur Bench Of The Bombay High Court
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke for a Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Raj D Wakode sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.”
Petition Challenging The Legality Of Arrest
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that “the petitioner seeks a declaration that his arrest is illegal and violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” He was arrested on 08.05.2007 in connection with Crime No. 149/2007 of Dhantoli Police Station and subsequently in six other crimes registered at Gondia and one crime at Chandrapur.”
Acquittal In Eight Criminal Cases
Delving deeper into the facts of the case, the Division Bench lays bare in para 4 disclosing that “he came to be acquitted after trial in all eight cases.” The trial in the last case was completed on 23.09.2011 by Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge Chandrapur and was released on executing bail bond under Section 437(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, he executed the bail bond on 26.09.2011. As per the order of the Court, he requires to be released on 27.09.2011; therefore, his mother, along with his brother, came to Nagpur to take him back and met him and informed him that the entire procedure is followed and the bond is executed. It is alleged by the petitioner that jail authorities intentionally delayed the procedure and released him about 2.30 p.m. on 27.09.2011.
As soon as the petitioner came out from the jail, a group of unknown civilians, by shutting his mouth, lifted him and took him in an unnumbered vehicle. Six of those unknown persons carried him, which was an act of forcible abduction. The said act of abduction was witnessed by his brother, mother and advocate. Though his advocate and associates stepped forward to enquire where the petitioner is being taken, none of them responded. On the contrary, his advocate was threatened. Immediately at about 15.30 p.m., his advocate made a complaint to PSI, Dinesh Zhambre, at Dhantoli Police Station.”
Alleged Illegal Custody And Subsequent Arrest
As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 5 that “the petitioner contended that subsequently he came to know that respondent No. 2 – Superintendent of Gadchiroli Police – had sent one Mr Satish Shinde, PSI, Local Crime Branch, Gadchiroli, to enquire about the petitioner. PSI Shinde and other staff of the Local Crime Branch, on learning about the release of the petitioner from jail, took the petitioner in custody on 27.09.2011 at 2.30 p.m. and took him to Desaiganj Police Station, Gadchiroli. As per the contention of the petitioner, alleged custody was illegal. The action of taking him in custody without following due process of law. At around 17.30 p.m. the petitioner was informed that he was arrested in Crime No. 14/2007 of Purada Police Station without informing him of any details of the said crime or the grounds of arrest.
He was not shifted to Purada Police Station, Gadchiroli, and detained in Desaiganj Police Station. On 28.09.2011 at about 4.30, he was produced before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurkheda. Thus, his production before the magistrate was also not within 24 hours, since he was taken into custody at about 2.30 p.m. on 27.09.2011. Respondent No. 4 – PSI Purada Police Station placed remand papers seeking police custody on the ground that the petitioner was an abscondor and had been arrested at 7.30 p.m. on 27.09.2011.
Despite the petitioner having filed a written application stating the facts that in nine cases he faced trial and had been discharged or acquitted. During the period of 4 years and four months as an under-trial prisoner up to 27.09.2011, and also due to the fact of the abduction, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurkheda, ignored the serious allegations made by him and granted two days police custody remand. On 30.09.2011 the petitioner was shown to be arrested in another crime, No. 23/2007, of Purada Police Station. In subsequent crimes also, neither he was informed of the nature of the accusation in the said crime nor the grounds of arrest communicated to him. On 03.10.2011, after he was remanded to judicial custody, he was again sent to Nagpur Central Prison.
It is further contention of the petitioner that neither in his arrest form nor anywhere else is there an explanation by the Investigating Agency to show how the petitioner was shown to be absconding for many years when he was in jail. There was absolutely no compliance under Sections 41 or 55 of Criminal Procedure Code. Though the arrest form shows that his father was informed regarding his arrest, his father or any family member was never informed regarding his arrest, and for all the above reasons, his arrest is illegal.”
Petitioner’s Arguments On Constitutional Violations
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 6 that “heard learned counsel for the petitioner.” He reiterated the said contentions and submitted that there is total non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 41, 48 and 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The grounds of arrest were never communicated to the present petitioner. Despite the fact that the petitioner was in jail from 2007 to 2011, intentionally he was shown to be absconding.”
Non-compliance With Arrest Procedure And Supreme Court Precedents
It is worth paying singular attention that the Division Bench points out in para 7 that “Respondent ensures that his arrest is legal and duly executed in view of the mandatory provisions under Sections 46 and 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” Without any transit warrant, he was taken into custody in another crime. The manner in which the petitioner was taken into custody was completely illegal. There is absolutely no record to show that respondent No.2 directed PSI Shinde of Crime Branch to enquire about the petitioner. There is no station diary entry or GD entry showing that he was directed to take the present petitioner in custody.
Thus, there is a gross violation of Supreme Court decisions in the catena of decisions, including D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR (1997) SC 610. He submitted that it is a gross violation of subsequent judgements of the Supreme Court, including Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356.”
The Division Bench’s Observations on Police Misconduct and Violation of Fundamental Rights
Most forthrightly, most significantly, and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 59 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgement postulating precisely that, “The present Respondent No.2 is a Higher Police Officer well versed with the legal provisions holding public office who abused his position, which is a matter of great public concern. Similarly, respondent No. 12 is also a police officer.
When the police persons are violator of the law whose primary responsibility is to protect the law, the punishment for such violation has to be proportionately stringent so as to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the society. The responsibility of the respondent No.2 and 12 to protect and uphold the law. It may not be out of context to remind that the motto of Maharashtra State Police is “Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya” (Sanskrit : “To protect good and to punish evil”), which needs to be respected. Those, who are called upon to administer the criminal law, must bear in mind that they have a duty not merely to the individual accused before them, but also to the State and to the community at large.”
Supreme Court Precedent on Illegal Handcuffing and Compensation
Most rationally, the Division Bench while citing the relevant case law observes in para 61 holding that, “The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Ravikant S.Patil, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 373, wherein the similar issue was involved and the High Court has granted compensation regarding the handcuffing. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the handcuffing is an act against all norms of decency and amounts to violation of principles underlying Article 21. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, “we do not propose to interfere with the order directing the payment of compensation. But we think that Shri Prakash Chavan, Inspector of Police, appellant herein, cannot be made personally liable. He has acted only as an official and even assuming that he has exceeded his limits and thus erred in taking the under trial prisoners handcuffed, still we do not think that he can be made personally liable. In Rudul Sah referred (supra) this Court directed the State to pay compensation to the person illegally detained. The High Court also having noted this decision observed that the court can order payment of compensation either by the State or persons acting on behalf of the State. Having so observed, the High Court, however, held Shri Prakash Chavan, Inspector of Police personally liable and directed him to pay the compensation. We are of the view that in the instant case also a similar order as one passed in Rudul Sah (supra), will meet the ends of justice. Then the High Court has also directed that an entry should be made in his service record to the effect that he was guilty of violation of fundamental right of an under trial prisoner. So far this direction is concerned, it is submitted that such an adverse entry cannot straightway be made without giving the Inspector of Police, appellant 2 herein, an opportunity of being heard.”
State Liability for Illegal Arrest and Violation of Fundamental Rights
As a corollary, it is worth noting that the Division Bench then hastens to add in para 62 noting that, “In the light of the above observations and here in the present case also the Respondent Nos. 2 and 12 acted as an official and they have exceeded their limits and thus, violating the provisions of law. The petitioner was arrested without following due process of law. In the case of Rudul Sah (supra), wherein the compensation to the person was granted as they were illegally detained. Thus, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Ravikant S. Patil (supra), here in the present case also, the State can be directed to pay the compensation to the present Petitioner for the act of the Respondent Nos.2 and 12 as they were held guilty of violation of the fundamental rights of the present Petitioner.”
Bombay High Court’s Order Awarding Compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh
Resultantly and most commendably, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 63 that, “In view of that, we proceed to pass the following order.
Order
- The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
- The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs Only) shall be paid by the Respondent No.1 to the present Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
- The amount of compensation be deposited in this Court.
- If petitioner is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted, he is at liberty to file a suit before the appropriate court to get the compensation.
- As far as the other prayer of the petitioner as to the directions to respondent No.8 are concerned, we are not inclined to give any directions to the respondent No.8 regarding enquiry in the complaint filed by the Advocate Surendra Gadling of the petitioner and therefore, said prayer is hereby rejected.
”
Criminal Writ Petition Disposed of by the Division Bench
Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 64 that, “With the above directions Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
Article 21 and Article 22: Constitutional Protection Against Illegal Arrests
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Division Bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court Hon’ble Ms Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Hon’ble Mr Justice Raj D Wakode have made it abundantly clear in this noteworthy judgment that there will be zero tolerance to illegal arrests in contravention of fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution which is definitely most laudable. We also need to note that the Court outrightly rejected the argument of the State that secrecy was necessary because of alleged Naxal links holding that the constitutional duty to give reasons for an arrest applies without exceptions.
It was also underscored by the Division Bench while reiterating that, “A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India shows that the intent of the constitution makers while incorporating the provisions was not to create any exceptional circumstances. This mandate of Article 22(1) is notwithstanding any exception.” It was also most commendably directed by the Division Bench to the State to deposit Rs 2 lakh in compensation in eight weeks and also made it crystal clear that Ferreira can file a civil suit if he seeks a higher amount! No denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A – 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965
