Mumbai: The Bombay High Court termed the arrest of a man, for alleged non-payment of electricity charges, as “arbitrary and unwarranted”. The HC has directed the Maharashtra government to pay him Rs 25,000 as compensation. The court found that Alex, a social worker, had already settled the dues before his arrest, which was carried out without proper verification.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan criticised both the police and the magistrate’s court for failing to act with due diligence. Alex was accused by Adani Electricity of tampering with electric meters and drawing unauthorised power supply, causing a loss of Rs 64,000. Following an FIR lodged in 2018, Alex assured the authorities he would pay the amount and had cleared all dues, including compounding charges, by January 2020.
Despite this, officers from the suburban RCF police station arrested Alex on January 29, 2020, without confirming whether he had made the payments. The court stated that the police should have verified the payment status before taking such a drastic step. It described the arrest as “rash” and “contrary to the provisions of law,” emphasising that the reasons for arrest were flimsy and lacked a factual basis.
The court also rebuked the magistrate’s court for failing to properly evaluate the need for police custody, highlighting that it is the duty of the magistrate to ensure the protection of an individual’s liberty from arbitrary actions by the police. The bench noted that magistrates are the first point of legal scrutiny and must assess whether there is a rational basis for the deprivation of liberty.
Directing the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 25,000 to Alex as compensation for his mental agony, the court also ordered the city Commissioner of Police to initiate a departmental inquiry against the officers involved. Alex had sought legal action against these officers for wrongful arrest and a Rs 50 crore compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights.
The police claimed that they had issued notices to Alex in 2019 and 2020 seeking proof of payment, and arrested him when he failed to produce the documents. However, Alex argued that he had responded to these notices and expressed his willingness to provide the necessary documents.
The bench concluded that since the payment was made by January 27, 2020, there was no need for the arrest, and the police should have allowed Alex more time to submit the receipts.
