The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on the Mumbai Police for what it termed a blatant abuse of authority in the arrest of a Karnataka-based businessman, VP Nayak, from Kundapur in Udupi. In a strongly worded judgment, the court declared that the arrest carried out by Bandra Police in October 2024 was unlawful, lacking lawful authority, and amounted to a direct violation of an individual’s personal liberty. The bench, comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil, stressed that an arrest is not a casual step in criminal procedure, but rather a grave measure that inflicts humiliation, strips a person of freedom, and leaves indelible scars on reputation and dignity.
The judges observed that in Nayak’s case, the officers had crossed their boundaries by invoking Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with criminal breach of trust by a public servant or agent. This section is a far more serious charge than the other provisions initially considered — namely, Sections 406, 420, 465, and 477A of the IPC, which involve offences such as cheating, forgery, and misappropriation, carrying a maximum punishment of seven years. The deliberate addition of Section 409 by Inspector Pradeep Kerkar and Sub-Inspector Kapil Shirsath, the court noted, converted the matter into a non-bailable offence, allowing the police to sidestep the procedural safeguards mandated under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code. These safeguards would have required the police to issue a notice to Nayak before initiating an arrest for bailable offences with punishments of up to seven years.
The background of the case stemmed from a business dispute between Nayak and his cousin, Gurudut Kamath, over a perfume oil partnership. Following the complaint, the police registered an FIR and proceeded to arrest Nayak on October 23, 2024, after including Section 409. He was kept in custody for 20 days, an action his lawyer, senior advocate Aabad Ponda, argued was a calculated misuse of power by the investigating officers. Ponda stressed that senior officers had explicitly sanctioned only the lesser charges, but the investigating team chose to escalate the matter with Section 409 to ensure Nayak’s detention.
Advocate Faisal Shaikh, appearing on behalf of the complainant Kamath, defended the police by stating that the inclusion of Section 409 was justified and pointed out that a chargesheet had already been filed under this section. However, the High Court found this reasoning unconvincing and ruled that the circumstances revealed a “colourable exercise of power” by the police, motivated not by law but by malice or extraneous considerations. The judges remarked that the manner in which the section was added “smacks of police high-handedness” and was a deliberate attempt to deprive the petitioner of his liberty without legal basis.
In its final order, the High Court directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to Nayak for the unlawful arrest and wrongful custody. However, the court also ensured accountability by making it clear that this compensation would not ultimately be borne by the state exchequer. Instead, the government was instructed to recover the amount directly from the salaries of the officers found responsible once the departmental inquiry is concluded. The bench has mandated that this inquiry must be completed within a strict time frame of eight weeks, underlining the urgency of fixing responsibility and preventing such misuse of power in the future.
Through this judgment, the Bombay High Court has sent a strong message that personal liberty cannot be compromised through arbitrary and motivated actions of law enforcement agencies. By stressing that arrest is not a tool for harassment or coercion but a measure to be exercised with utmost caution, the court has reinforced constitutional safeguards against wrongful detention, while also holding individual officers personally accountable for their excesses.
