Observing that the state government should ensure citizens are comfortable to walk into a police station and not shiver due to uncertainty, the Bombay High Court rejected the Maharashtra Police s...
Observing that the state government should ensure citizens are “comfortable to walk into a police station” and “not shiver” due to uncertainty, the Bombay High Court rejected the Maharashtra Police’s plea seeking recall of the order that imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a Palghar police officer for refusing to provide copies of the complaint or FIR to the accused persons. The HC also remarked that while the police officers act “innocent” and “cooperative” before the court, they “behave like lords in police stations”.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad had on June 25, while imposing a cost on the police officer, observed that such petitions continue to reach the court because officers fail to comply with settled legal requirements, compelling petitioners to spend on litigation.
The petitioners, accused in economic offence cases, told the HC through advocates Manuj Borkar and Prasad Borkar that despite receiving Economic Offences Wing (EOW) complaint copies “after strenuous efforts”, Wada police station refused complaint copies in separate offence, allegedly calling it “time killing”.
On Friday, Additional Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh for the police “made a valiant attempt to convince the court” that the concerned senior PI from Wada police station was not guilty of not providing the copies of the complaints to the petitioners.
The state lawyer further claimed that the petitioners were requested to collect complaint copies from the police station in May this year, but the petitioners did not collect them. Deshmukh stated that the Crime Branch investigating the same issue had given copies of the complaints to the petitioners, the contents of which were similar.
The state claimed that the Wada police officers could have personally given the complaints to the petitioners or called them again, however, there was no intention to not provide the copies.
“Your officers become so innocent in the court hall but outside the court hall in their police station they are lords. All your officers in our court suddenly become so cooperative. Why the petitioners were compelled to come to the HC? People shiver when they come to your police station. In fact the police station should be such that any citizen should be comfortable to walk in. They shiver when they walk in because they do not know what is going to happen inside,” ACJ Ghuge orally remarked.
The bench examined records and observed that the complaints were lodged with Senior PI Dattatray Kindre, who had issued notice to the petitioners and they had repeatedly requested him to provide copies to respond to the inquiry.
Rejecting the state’s plea, the HC noted, “It is the same officer who did not supply the copies. After this court passed an order on June 25, the copies of the complaints were served upon the petitioners on their email address by the same officer. In view of the above, we do not find any error in our order.”
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More