- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 2001 Waluba s/o Laxman Kadam, Age 49 years, Occ. Agri., R/o At Post Amthana, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra (Copy served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. P.S.I. Ramesh Munde, Sillod (Rural) Police Station, Sillod, District Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for respondent ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 29th January, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on - 2 - account of the infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The other reliefs which the petitioner has prayed for at prayer clauses (C) and (D) were not pressed and the aforesaid prayer clauses came to be deleted by the petitioner on 9.7.2001. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner came to be arrested on 24.3.2001 and though he was arrested on 24.3.2001, his arrest was shown on 25.3.2001 when he was produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate in respect of the chapter proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioner, the Taluka Executive Magistrate remanded him to magisterial custody and because of failure of the petitioner to produce the surety, the petitioner was detained in magisterial custody and ultimately came to be released on 28.3.2001. The petitioner, therefore, claims that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610) have been breached by the respondents/ police officers. It is the contention of the petitioner that his nearest relative was not informed about the arrest which is required to be done by the respondents. It is further stated that, on account of the breach of the directives of the Supreme Court, the petitioner was unnecessarily made to languish in prison till he was ultimately released on 28.3.2001. - 3 - 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply of Ramesh Bhimrao Munde, P.S.I., Beed City Police Station, Beed in January 2002. A copy of the affidavit-in-reply was served on the petitioner on 31.1.2002. In the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that a complaint had been received against the petitioner and others on account of the obstruction which was caused by the petitioner and others in the construction of the road. It is further stated that the petitioner and others were called to Police Station on 25.3.2001. It is further stated that on 25.3.2001 the petitioner and others came to be arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate at 12.00 noon. It is further stated that information was conveyed to one Eknath Vithoba Kawle in respect of the arrest of the petitioner. The respondents have annexed the extract of the arrest register which shows the arrest of the petitioner on 25.3.2001 and information being conveyed to Eknath Vithoba Kawle. 4. The respondents have claimed that the petitioner was not arrested on 24.3.2001 but was in fact arrested on 25.3.2001 and towards the compliance of the directives of the Supreme Court, one Eknath Vithoba Kawle was informed. Though the copy of the affidavit-in-reply was served to the petitioner, no rejoinder - 4 - has been filed. In any event, whether the petitioner was arrested on 24.3.2001 or whether he was arrested on 25.3.2001 cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the light of denial by the respondents of having arrested the petitioner on 24.3.2001. In the light of the extract of arrest register, the respondents have substantially complied with the directives of the Supreme Court. No rejoinder has been filed denying that Eknath Vithoba Kawle was informed about the arrest of the petitioner. 5. We have heard Shri Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. According to us, there is no merit in the petition, for the reasons stated above, and the petition, therefore, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] fmp/cwp208.01