Bombay HC: No Legal Search could be accomplished without a Warrant, Govt. to pay Rs. 25000 Compensation and can recover from Police Officers who conducted illegal search

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The Bombay High Court ruled that conducting a search without warrant results in the breach of Right to Privacy. Court also fined state government Rs.25,000 payable to the aggrieved for conducting such illegal search.

Facts of the Case

The bench consisting two judges, Justice TV Nalawade and Justice SM Gavhane of Aurangabad were hearing a criminal writ petition filed by one Dnyaneshwar Todmal, a driver.

The incident took place on the night of May 5 and May 6, 2018, at about 2 Am. The search of the house of the petitioner was taken by the police. According to the petitioner, police had not obtained a search warrant for taking such search and though after search nothing was found from his home. Petitioner contended that during the search, one constable had tried to keep a pistol in his house but due to alertness of the petitioner he could not keep such arm. The petitioner added that while leaving the house, police officials threatened him saying that they would blame him for the wrong crime. It was contended that this act of the police was infringement into his privacy, violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The driver filed a complaint on May 7, 2018, before the concerned Tahsildar about the illegal act of police but no action was taken. The complaint then given to the District Superintendent of Police on May 10, 2018, and copy of the complaint was sent to State Human Rights Commission but no action was taken against the respondents, the petitioner said.

Court warned the Police, asked Govt. to recover compensation amount from Police Officers

“The provision of section 166 of the CrPC shows that police officer in charge of a police station may require another to issue search-warrant when a place to be searched is situated within the local jurisdiction of the other police station. This Court holds that provisions of sections 165 and 166 of the CrPC are applicable in a case like the present one.”

“In the case reported as State v. Rehman (AIR 1960 SC 210) it is laid down by the Apex Court that as search is a process exceedingly arbitrary in character, stringent statutory conditions are imposed on the exercise of the power. The provision of section 165 of the CrPC is enacted to enable police to take a search when there is urgency and when it is not permissible to follow the lengthy process, securing search warrant from Magistrate.”

“If in the past some crimes were registered against the petitioner for the offence of accidents that cannot be considered to say that the petitioner had a criminal background when his occupation was a driver. Many times, a driver faces such prosecution.”

Thus, the Court directed the government to deposit Rs. 25,000 as compensation payable to the petitioner. Also, the court gave liberty to the state to recover the compensation from the mentioned police officers.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Bombay-HC-No-Legal-Search-could-be-accomplished-without-a-Warrant.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Team of Courtroom and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -