Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1606 (BOM)

Fakruddin Ahmed Lohar v. State of Maharashtra

2014-07-24

P.R.BORA, S.S.SHINDE

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP for State. 2. When this petition was heard for admission on 28th January, 2008, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted before this Court that the petitioner is restricting his prayer to the extent of claim of compensation. Therefore, this Court, while granting Rule in the matter, observed that, "Rule to the extent of prayer made for claiming compensation.". 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited our attention to various documents placed on record and in particular an application dated 18.10.2007 filed in S.T.C.C. No. 5085/2004 (Exhibit B, page 45 of the petition), praying therein for expeditious hearing of the said proceedings. It is the further submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that on 18.10.2007, 200 police personnels were present in the Court premises so as to arrest the petitioner, and said fact has been supported by filing affidavits of various advocates, who were present in the court premises. It is the further contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner was arrested in court premises on 18.10.2007 and he was given illtreatment by the police personnels during police custody, and when the petitioner requested for medical aid, the petitioner was not immediately referred to the hospital. Therefore, according to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, for inaction on the part of the police in not referring him immediately to the hospital for medical aid and also for inhuman treatment to the petitioner in police custody, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation. Therefore, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the grounds taken in the petition along with annexures thereto, submits that the petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned APP invited our attention to the averments made in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.3 Shri Sahebrao s/o Vanaji Sonawane, who at the relevant time, was working as A.S.I., Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule, and submits that the allegations made in the petition as to illtreatment and harassment to the petitioner are denied specifically. The reply further points out that the petitioner was not arrested from court premises, as alleged, as it is apparent from the annexure to the reply. Further, the petitioner was immediately referred to the civil hospital on 18.10.2007. The reply further points out that the petitioner was not arrested from court premises, as alleged, as it is apparent from the annexure to the reply. Further, the petitioner was immediately referred to the civil hospital on 18.10.2007. Learned APP, inviting our attention to extract of Station Diary, which is placed on record along with the reply, and submits that the petitioner was referred to the medical treatment on 18.10.2007 and also on 19.10.2007 at 1.00 a.m. when he complained about chest pains. Therefore, according to learned APP, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned APP for the State. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the petition; the affidavitinreply filed by respondent No.3 and affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner. 7. Upon considering the material placed on record in its entirety, and in particular averments in the affidavit and annexures thereto filed by the Respondent No.3, it is evident that on 18.10.2007, the petitioner was referred to the Civil Hospital, Dhule for medical checkup, as it is supported by the extract of the copy of the OPD case papers of civil hospital. Apart from that, there is assertion in the affidavit in reply, which is supported by an entry in the Station Diary, that when the petitioner had complained about chest pains, at about 1.00 a.m., on 19.10.2007, he was immediately referred to the Civil Hospital, Dhule. Therefore, viewed from any angle, in our considered opinion, there was no any illtreatment to the petitioner; on the contrary the petitioner was provided timely medical aid. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that, neither the petitioner was illegally arrested nor he was subjected to illtreatment. On the contrary, he was immediately referred for medical aid upon his complaint of chest pains. 8. In the light of discussion herein above, the writ petition sans merit, hence rejected. Rule discharged. We make it clear that dismissal of the present writ petition would have no bearing on the pending proceedings instituted by the petitioner before JMFC, Dhule, for other reliefs.