IN THE judgement of the case-Bipin Satish Chandra Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra and the criminal application filed by Bhavesh Sheth delivered on October 22, 2026, Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, at the Bombay High Court in Mumbai, have declared the arrest of petitioner Bipin Satish Chandra Agrawal on August 4, 2017, “unlawful and Illegal”, acknowledging that this has caused “substantial financial loss” to him. The HC has directed the State Govt. to pay to the petitioner Rs five Lakh by way of compensation to him on account of unlawful arrest and detention for six days in Police custody and for 20 days in judicial custody within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the order on the official website of the High Court.

 

The HC has directed the State to initiate appropriate strict action including an order of immediate suspension against the respondent-2, Mahesh Lakhade and all concerned officers and recover the proportionate compensation from his/their salaries, if so advised. The Court has directed the Registry to place this judgement before the Administrative Committee of the HC for taking appropriate action against the Magistrate(s) of the 64th court, Mumbai, who adjudicated the remand application of the petitioner on August 5, 8, 10, 2017 and Bail Application on August 16 and 22, 2017 for having wrongfully and without verifying and carefully examining the matter and without recording any reasons permitted police and judicial custody of the petitioner. The petitioner resides at Walkeshwar, Mumbai and deals in the business import-export of garments.

 

The complainant’s statement in the FIR concocts a dispute between the petitioner and his mother-in-law and attributes to the petitioner an intention to usurp the property. However, the same is belied with documents on record such as, Power of Attorney, Individual Agreement (unregistered) dated May 8, 2017, which marks the petitioner as witness and includes the share certificate No 50 in the name of Smt Asawari Kulkarni and para 29 thereof which records that all notices/intimations by complainant to be sent at the petitioner’s address at Walkeshwar Mumbai owing to her mother-in-law residing with her daughter and petitioner. Additionally, the emails from April 6, 2017 to April 29, 2017 also record with the communication for Indemnity Bond for indemnifying the Society. These documents establish a relationship of lawful attorney, not dispossession. Though, the complainant’s statement claims lodging of a written complaint on June 23, 2017, the RTI response from the Police contradicts it, stating no complaint was received FIR fails to mention name of the complainant. These serious lacunae are unexplained. Though the Police Claims that, complaint copy was filed with the charge-sheet before the 64th Court Magistrate, the chargesheet itself states that the Police had not annexed the copy of the written complaint by the informant. These mutually contradictory versions, taken together with the foregoing evidence compel the conclusion that the statements of the Police were made with a deliberate intent to implicate the petitioner in a false case of extortion and justify his unlawful arrest.

 

An examination of the Arrest Form annexed to the chargesheet revealed the following irregularities: (a). The Form duly filled with the date as August 5, 2017 at four places have been overwritten as August 4, 2017 at three places. Undoubtedly, this constitutes tampering with a statutorily maintained document. (b). Serial No.1 records that the police arrest registration No. 262 is dated August 5, 2017 whereas the petitioner was arrested on August 4, 2017. This discrepancy exposes the falsity of the arrest record. (c). Serial No. 7 which should contain information regarding the medical examination, is left blank, as against the Station Diary 55, which records that, the medical examination was conducted. The contradiction is apparent as it is filled with falsehood. (d). Serial No. 8, which statutorily requires information regarding the grounds of arrest and legal rights of the person arrested is left blank, though, statutorily mandated to be filled. Furthermore, the date and time of arrest intimation given to his wife, Shalaka is also blank. (e). These omissions are telling; They suggest that arrest intimation was effected much subsequent to the arrest as the petitioner contends.

 

The HC found credible the petitioner’s assertion that the signatures of the petitioner and his wife were obtained between 1.20 am and 2.00 am on August 5, 2017. The Court found merit in the contention, that to align the information in the FIR and the Station Diaries, the Police resorted to overwriting the date to manipulate the record, but however, were unable to alter the Registration No. 262 in the Arrest Register which recorded the date as August 5, 2017. (f). Serial No. 12 characterizes the petitioner as recidivist who is likely to abscond on bail. This categorisation is wholly unsupported by even iota of any corroborative material. The Police have placed no evidence or any material on record that, the petitioner possessed any criminal antecedents. The arrest of the petitioner was done without verifying the genuineness of the complaint. The classification appears to have been made on a deliberate assumption without any evidence or information collected by the respondents. This contravenes the provisions of section 41-A of the CrPC. The HC found no statement or evidence on record to show that the petitioner was granted a genuine opportunity to comply with the Notice as per the provisions of section 41-a (2) and (3). No reasons were recorded by the Police under section 41-A to show that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms of the notice. Evidently, the arrest was prior to the notice and therefore, undoubtedly illegal under the well- settled law.

 

There is no material indicating that medical examination of the petitioner was conducted on August 4, 2017. Upon examining the entire case and the record, the HC noted that the Police had attempted to characterise the petitioner as some gangster, history-sheeter or an extortionist without an iota of evidence in that regard and without an investigation of the genuineness of complaint. Even simple analysis and investigation of the messages and communication on record reveal that the petitioner was alleging wrongdoings by the partners of the Developers. Police have entirely failed to do so. The Magistrate of the 64th Court has failed to apply his mind independently and adopted a very casual approach and thereby caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. The petition was allowed and the criminal application was disposed of.