JUDGMENT R.G. Sindhakar, J: - Petitioners, three in number, have filed this writ petition for the relief of adequate compensation from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for a direction to penalise the respondents suitably on the following allegations: 2. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers while petitioner no.3 is their maternal uncle. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have their business of sale and purchase of wood. S. no. 696 hissa a no.6 at village Insuli, Taluka Sawantwadi, is owned by petitioner No.3. It appears that there was some cutting of trees in the land. Shri Fernandes adjoining land owner raised some dispute about the ownership of the land on which the trees stood and that was on 6-3-1989. The respondent no.4 happened to be the police patil of the village and on 7th March 1989 a panchanama appears to have been made in respect of the cutting of trees. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were allowed to take away the wood of the trees. It appears that on a complaint having been made by Shri Fernandes the matter was taken up by the police on 21st March 1989 stating therein that out of his land bearing S. No. 196 hissa a nos. 3 and 7, petitioners had cut Ayin and Kinjal trees. The complaint was enquired into by head constable Shri Gonsalvis, who recorded the statements of the complainant and the petitioner no.2 and at that time it was agreed between the parties that they will measure the land and will pay compensation after deciding whether the trees were in the land of the applicant or in the land of said Luis. Payment was to be made to the concerned owner after ascertaining the above fact. This is to be found in the affidavit filed by P.S.I. Sawant at page 40. Inspite of this it appears that the petitioners apprehended that they would be under arrest and therefore they applied for anticipatory bail in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi and on 28th March 1989 succeeded in getting the order of anticipatory bail. The order directed that the present petitioners be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 500 with suerty in like amount in the event of their arrest by police station Banda in connection with the complaint by Fernandes. The order directed that the present petitioners be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 500 with suerty in like amount in the event of their arrest by police station Banda in connection with the complaint by Fernandes. It was also directed by the order that the petitioners shall attend the Banda Police Station on every Sunday between 12 to 4 hrs until further orders and the applicants were directed to give necessary cooperation to the police in the matter of investigation. That order was passed on 28th March 1989. It appears that the petitioners have been thereafter attending the police station as directed. 3. Petitioners, grievance is that inspite of this offence came to be registered on 15th June 1989 under sections 447 and 379 of the I.P.C. On 2lst June 1989 petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 came to be not arrested by the Banda police station at 2 p.m. and the police head constable respondent no.3 was the person who was at the police station and who effected the arrest. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they were threatened that they would be arrested and even bribe amount was pas demanded from them. The petitioners further contended that inspite of the fact that the police were informed about the anticipatory bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, they were not enlarged on bail and were in fact paraded to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawantwadi 15 k.m. away handcuffed and carried. in the S.T. Bus. It has to be noted that this allegation that they were not enlarged on bail and su taken a distance of 15 k.m. to Sawantwadi Judicial Magistrate's Court from the place of arrest, is not only not denied but specifically admitted by the police head constable who has filed his affidavit in this petition. It is his contention that he was not aware of the bail order and the same was not shown to him. It is his contention that he was not aware of the bail order and the same was not shown to him. Petitioners have averred in their petition that they have all along been telling the police officers that the court has passed the bail order directing their release on bail in the event of their arrest and they have been attending the police station as per the direction given in that order, yet the police officers took no note of the same and on the contrary told the petitioners that they would not be released on bail. Petitioners' request to allow them to see their advocate was also rejected by the police officers and the police also threatened the petitioners that if their advocate comes to release them, they will also arrest petitioners advocate. Petitioners were kept, according to their averments, by the respondents, illegally in the lock up on 21-6-1989 and.on 22-6-1989. The respondents handcuffed the petitioners and brought the petitioners in that position through Banda Bazarpetb and brought the petitioners by S.T. bus Sawantwadi and produced them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawantwadi at about 4 p.m. on 22-6-1989. They asked for remand also. 4. It is impossible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents mat they were not aware of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail. In fact it is evident that the order was passed as early as on 28th March 1989 and that a copy of such order should have reached the police station in normal courSe. Apart from this when the order was passed the learned public prosecutor was present and in his presence after hearing both sides the order of anticipatory bail had come to be passed. It has to be ooted that after their arrest, the petitioners were taken straight to the court. They appraised the learned Judicial Magistrate of the oider passed. It has to be noted that pursuant to the order of anticipatory ball passed, petitioners have been attending the police station and that is sufficient to fasten know ledge of passing of such an order of anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. They appraised the learned Judicial Magistrate of the oider passed. It has to be noted that pursuant to the order of anticipatory ball passed, petitioners have been attending the police station and that is sufficient to fasten know ledge of passing of such an order of anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The affidavit, therefore, filed by the police officer pretend ignorance about such order passed, will have to be rejected outright and it will have to be held that the police constable respondent No.3 herein was aware of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and inspite of the order passed he declined to take note of the same and act upon it and refused to enlarge the petitioners, on bail as directed. It has to be noted that the earlier investigating officer had at called parties and it was understood that compensation was to be paid to Shri Fernanded who was at the complainant, if it was found that the trees fell in his land on measurement of the land. 5. The petitioners have averred specifically in their petition that the certified copy of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in bail application No.19 of 1989 was shown and the respontrents were requested to release them on bail on their arrest However, apart from the bald denial of these assertions, there is nothing on record to show that it was not shown. In fact there is enough material to conclude that the certified copy of the order must have been shown, to the police officers who effected the arrest. That is obvious because such a certified copy was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate when the petitioners were produced before him by the police. Alongwith the application for bail made before the Learned Judicial Magistrate on 22-6-1989 the certified copy appears to have been produced. That is obvious because such a certified copy was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate when the petitioners were produced before him by the police. Alongwith the application for bail made before the Learned Judicial Magistrate on 22-6-1989 the certified copy appears to have been produced. It is obvious that the petitioners must have in their possession with the certified copy of the order and if it was not so it could not have been produced by them before the court as they were taken after their arrest from the police station to the court at Sawantwadi directly under police escort Apart from this probability of the case indicating that such a copy must have been produced, at any rate it could be hardly denied that the police officers were made aware of the fact that such an order of anticipatory bail has been passed in favour of the petitioners. It is not necessary, therefore, to refer in greater details to the material that is available on record. Suffice it to say that the interested denial of the police officer on this point cannot be taken at its face value. The result is that the petitioners who were directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the offence, were not, released as per the direction of the court and they were detained and taken in custody and taken to the court of the learned Magistrate at Sawantwadi about 15 km. away and it is not disputed that they were taken handcuffed in a S. T. bus and subjected to indignity. Non-availability of police vehicle is put forth in justification of they being carried by S.T. bus. Grievance is not on the point of they being taken in S.T. bus and not in police vehicle. Emphasis of grievance is that they were entitled to be released on bail as per the orders of the court and that they were not so enlarged and taken all the way to the court of the learned Magistrate at Sawantwadi, as stated earlier handcuffed. 6. The petitioners have naturally claimed compensation and have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in that behalf. 6. The petitioners have naturally claimed compensation and have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in that behalf. In the case of Bhim Singh MLA v. State of J K and others1 reported in 1986 Criminal Law Journal 192, the court held as under: "When a person comes to the Supreme Court with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases the Court has the-jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation". Here in this case precisely the same thing has happened. It is not the contention of the petitioners that they were not liable to be arrested. The contention of the petitioners is that they were not enlarged on bail on their arrest as pet the orders passed by the court and they were not so released on bail inspite of the fact that they made the police officers arresting them aware of such an order and offered to produce it, and they were carried a distance of about 15 k.m. in S.T. bus handcuffed for being produced before the learned Magistrate when they were not required to do so and their liberty therefore was curtailed in that behalf. There has been violation of their legal right It is obvious that, they, and in out opinion, rightly claimed compensation for the same. In the affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 Shri Gonsal vis, he has in the last para stated that even if knowingly or unknowingly he committed the said act it may be condoned and he may be given benefit of doubt and shown leniency. He further stated that "I submit my unconditional apology to this Hon 'ble Court". As observed by the Supreme Court such acts cannot be washed away or wished away and the petitioners who have approached this Court through post and who were given legal assistance, by this Court, have to be, in our opinion, compensated for violation of their rights. Considering the material that is placed on record it is found that so far as respondent no.3 is concerned, he is squarely to be blamed for the acts and it is his responsibility primarily to compensate. Considering the material that is placed on record it is found that so far as respondent no.3 is concerned, he is squarely to be blamed for the acts and it is his responsibility primarily to compensate. The State of Maharashtra cannot escape its liability and therefore the respondent no. 1 is also liable to pay compensation. So far as respondent no.2 is concerned it is found from the evidence filed by him that he was away from Banda police station on the date on which petitioners came to be arrested. He was sent for bandobast duty to Kolhapur and he appears to have returned on 23rd June 1989 from Kolhapur. Therefore at the time of arrest of the petitioners he was not, it appears present at the Banda Police Station and therefore could not be held guilty of the lapses or laches. The respondent no.4 who is a police patil is obviously not liable. 7. The point that remains for consideration is about the quantum of compensation. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, having given out anxious thought and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent no.3 is only head constable of police, we direct the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Hence Rule made absolute on the above terms. Petition allowed. 1.1986 Crl.L.J. 192 (S.C.).