The Bombay High Court on Thursday declared the 2017 arrest of a Mumbai businessman in an extortion case unlawful and ordered the Maharashtra government to pay him ₹5 lakh as compensation [Bipin Satish Chandra Agrwal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors].

A Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata also severely rebuked the Azad Maidan Police for acting in collusion with a private developer to implicate Bipin Satish Chandra Agrwal in an extortion case.

Agrwal had stepped in as the power of attorney holder for his elderly mother-in-law to negotiate a Society's redevelopment terms with Seth and Sonal Developers. When developers handed him ₹2 lakh as an advance payment during negotiations, the police swooped in, handcuffed him, and registered an FIR for extortion.

He eventually moved a plea seeking the declaration of his arrest as illegal, a departmental inquiry against the cops involved and compensation from the State. He appeared personally before the Court to detail his ordeal.

In its October 22 ruling, the Bench expressed deep anguish about the events narrated by him.

"After hearing the Petitioner at length, we felt a sense of deep anguish imagining what he went through," the Court said.

The Court found that Sub-Inspector Mahesh Lamkhade abused his official powers to falsely implicate Agrwal in the extortion case under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“Clearly this is a case of sheer abuse of process by the developer in collusion with the police. It is a classic case where a police sub inspector has exploited his official position and weaponized police machinery at his command, to advance the developer's interest against the petitioner, to wreak havoc in the petitioner's life apparently because he did not succumb to their pressure to accept the deal offered,” the Court held.

The Court found glaring fabrications in the case. The FIR was registered subsequent to the arrest, dates on arrest memos were overwritten, and a notice under Section 41A (notice seeking appearance of a person before the police) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was served only after Agrwal was already detained. 

Despite Agrwal having clean antecedents, police records falsely marked him as a habitual offender who was likely to abscond.

“The police have attempted to characterize the petitioner as some gangster, history-sheeter or an extortionist without having an iota of evidence in that regard and even without an investigation into genuineness of complaint,” the Court noted.

The Bench reiterated that a police officer cannot arrest an individual merely to ask questions and must record reasons why custody is indispensable.

The Court also pulled up the 64th metropolitan magistrate for mechanically granting police and judicial custody over Agrwal for 26 days.

“The learned magistrate of the 64th Court was also responsible for the peitioner’s wrongful detention. No reasons have been recorded for justifying continuation of remand... We find that the magistrate has failed to independently apply his mind and adopted a very casual approach,” the Court said. 

The High Court proceeded to direct the State to disburse ₹5 lakhs as compensation within two weeks, with liberty to recover the sum from the salaries of erring personnel. 

The Bench further directed disciplinary proceedings, including immediate suspension, against PSI Lamkhade. 

It has also placed the judgment before the High Court’s Administrative Committee to take action against the magistrates who repeatedly passed remand orders that prolonged Agrwal's pre-trial detention, without properly assessing the matter or recording any reasons.

Additional Public Prosecution JP Yagnik represented the State.

Advocates Anvay Pawar and Yuvraj Tidke appeared for Mahesh Lamkhade.

[Read Order]