[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pawan Ashok Bora vs The Superintendent Of Police And Others on 4 February, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:5073-DB
                                              1                           cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1107 OF 2023

             Pawan s/o Ashok Bora,
             Age-38 years, Occu: Lawyer,
             R/o. House No.442, Satbhai Lane,
             Chitale Road, Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar
             Pincode : 414 001                                        ...Petitioner

                            VERSUS

             1.        The Superintendent of Police,
                       D.S.P. Chowk,
                       Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

             2.        The State of Maharashtra,
                       Through Topkhana Police Station,
                       Near Akashwani, Ahmednagar

             3.     The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission
                    9, Hajarimal Somani Marg, Opp. Chhatrapati Shivaji
                    Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai-400 001                ...Respondents
                                                   ...
             Mr. Pawan Ashok Bora, party-in-person
             Mr. V. M. Jaware, A. P. P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
                                                   ...
                            CORAM                   : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                       ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                Reserved on          : 05.01.2026
                                Pronounced on        : 04.02.2026

             JUDGMENT (PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of

admission.

3. The petitioner who is an Advocate by profession has invoked Narwade 2 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and has prayed for the following main reliefs :-

A) The Criminal Writ Petition may kindly be allowed. B) The record and proceedings may please be called for. C) By issuing writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or direction in the like nature considering the gravity of the incident and taking into account the orders passed by Ld. CJM vide order No. SCC. No.-4691/2020 dated 11.03.2022 and final decree pronounced by the M.S.H.R.C. Court dated 01.02.2023 vide MAS/case No.-

1004/13/1/2020 by the Ld. Member chairperson in the interest of the Justice.

D) A C.B.I. inquiry or investigation through S.I.T. must be made of the whole series of incident/matter and appropriate penal action as per the relevant law should be taken against the real perpetrators. E) The Respondent to be directed to award just and reasonable Costs for driving to file this petition along with paying of compensation of Rs. 1 Crores in a time bound manner and also liable to pay interest P. A. till actual realization of the amount.

F) As per the testimonials annexed to "EXHB-D" Colly directions to be given to the concerned offices of financial institution and banks for furnishing of digital evidence of C. C. T. V. footage or confiscation of D. V. R. camcorder for backdated retrieval through specialized experts.

G) Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner to which they found entitled in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."

4. It seems that later on the petitioner amended the prayer clauses

and introduced the following prayer clause :-

"(C-1) By considering the gravity and intensity of the incident and taking into account the heinous and condemnable nature of the crime, appropriate and just relief may be granted in the interest of justice."

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that during Covid-19

pandemic, on 08.07.2020 when the petitioner had been to the ATM for

withdrawal of money some police personnel who were deployed on duty

to curb violation of the restrictions imposed during the said period has

assaulted the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was brutally beaten

by the police personnel. According to the petitioner the said act of police

Narwade 3 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

personnel thereby brutally assaulting the petitioner violates the

fundamental right of the petitioner. He further contends that the said Act

is violating his right to live with human dignity. He would further submit

that due to assault he sustained injuries and he was taken to the hospital.

Relying on the medical certificate the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has sustained severe injuries.

6. He would further submit that though he tried to get an information

under Right To Information Act, 2005 about the details of police

personnel who assaulted him, however, he could not get the details as

Respondent No.1- Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar did not provide

the actual names of the police personnel who assaulted him. He further

contends that he also has the CCTV footage to show that the petitioner

actually had gone to withdraw the money. The petitioner further

contends that his mother made a complaint to Respondent No.1-

Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar as well as Respondent No.3-

Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (for short " Commission")

contending that the Act of police personnel amounts to violation of his

human right as also his fundamental right and therefore requested both

Respondent No.1 as well as Respondent No.3 to take appropriate action.

7. The petitioner further contends that though an FIR came to be

registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 186, 188,

269, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3 of the Epidemic

Narwade 4 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

Diseases Act, 1897 and even charge sheet was also filed against the

petitioner pursuant to the same, however, the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ahmednagar by an order dated 11.03.2022 has found that

there is no prima facie evidence about alleged threatening and

obstructing the public servant in discharge of public functions and

therefore dropped the said proceedings against the petitioner.

8. In short, it is the case of petitioner that the allegations against the

petitioner for violating the restrictions imposed during the said Covid-19

pandemic are false and petitioner has not violated any restrictions. It is

his case that since the criminal proceedings initiated against the

petitioner for violating the restrictions imposed as well as for obstructing

the public servants from discharging their duty during the said Covid-19

pandemic have been dropped, this shows that the police personnel have

unnecessarily manhandled the petitioner and assaulted him.

9. The petitioner also contends that in a complaint filed by

petitioner's mother against Respondent No.1- Superintendent of Police,

Ahmednagar, before Respondent No.3-Commission, initially, by an order

dated 29.04.2022 Respondent No.3-Commission had issued notice to

Respondent No.1 thereby calling his explanation by invoking the powers

under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It is

however, contended that later on pursuant to explanation submitted by

Respondent No.1, Respondent No.3-Commission by an order dated

Narwade 5 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

01.02.2023 disposed off the complaint filed by the petitioner's mother by

withdrawing the show cause notice issued by Respondent No.3 dated

29.04.2022 after finding that Respondent No.1 has taken a disciplinary

action against the police officials therefore there is no need to proceed

with the said complaint. It is in this background that the petitioner has

approached this Court with the aforesaid prayers.

10. Learned APP on the other hand by relying on the affidavit-in-reply

filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that when the Covid-19

pandemic was at its peak, the petitioner was found loitering in

containment zone and when the petitioner was questioned about

violating the orders regarding restrictions imposed, at that time the

petitioner threatened the police personnel who were deployed on duty.

According to learned APP the Act of petitioner is in contravention of

Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 3 of the

Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

11. Learned APP further submits that though the criminal proceedings

filed against the petitioner has been dropped under the orders of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, however, the

allegations made by petitioner about the humiliation and physical

harassment are devoid of any substance. He would further submit that as

regards complaint filed by petitioner's mother before Respondent No.3-

Commission, after being satisfied with the explanation given by

Narwade 6 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

Respondent No.1 that it has already taken a disciplinary action against

the erring police personnel disposed off the said complaint. He therefore

submits that since Respondent No.1 has already initiated a disciplinary

action against the erring police personnel the Writ Petition is devoid of

any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.

12. We have heard the petitioner in person as well as learned APP. In

order to buttress his submission that the Act of erring police personnel is

violative of his fundamental right as well as right to live life with dignity

and thus he is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition, the

petitioner has relied on the following orders :-

(i) the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Punjab and Haryana

High Court in CRM-M No.16421 of 2025;

ii) orders passed by this Court at principal seat in the case of

Firdause Irani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. PIL-CJ-LD-VC-31 of

2020;

iii) order dated 21.08.2020 passed in a batch of Criminal Writ

Petitions including Criminal Writ Petition No. 548 of 2020 in the

case of Konan Kodio Ganstone & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ;

(iv) the Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2022 passed in Criminal

Writ Petition No.1546 of 2020 in the case of Rafat Khan s/o Samad

Yar Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ;

(v) the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2016 passed by this Court

Narwade 7 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

at principal seat in Criminal Writ Petition No.1545 of 2016 in the

case of Satish Banwarilal Sharma Vs. Union Territory of Diu, Daman

and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Ors.;

13. We find that the incident has taken place on 08.07.2020 when

admittedly the Covid-19 pandemic was at its peak. Admittedly, there

were restrictions imposed on movement of the citizens in the entire

country. Admittedly, the petitioner was found moving in a containment

zone. The said fact has been admitted by the petitioner himself. The

police personnel who were on duty in order to curb the free movement in

containment zone have intercepted the petitioner as the petitioner was

found moving without wearing a mask. Though the petitioner contends

that he was brutally and mercilessly beaten, however, the Medical

Certificate annexed with the Writ Petition by petitioner himself shows

that injuries found are simple in nature. Though the competent court has

discharged the petitioner of the charges under Sections 186, 188, 269,

506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 3 of the Epidemic

Diseases Act, 1897 that does not mean that the preventive action taken

by the police personnel can be termed as illegal. We find that the

petitioner's mother has made a complaint with Respondent No.3-

Commission, however, after being satisfied with the explanation given by

Respondent No.1, Respondent No.3-Commission has observed in its order

while disposing the complaint, which reads thus:-

Narwade 8 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

"4. No doubt, the departmental action does not create a bar in the way of the Commission to invoke its powers and discretion u/s. 18 of the Act of 1993, but, one should not lost sight of the fact that with heavy pressure and stress on the shoulders of the law enforcing agency during the pandemic period during which they put their own life at risk, and of course the role attributed to the complainant, I am of the opinion that with the disciplinary action being taken against the erring police officials, I don't think any further intervention by the Commission is required. So far as the reservations placed on record by complainant vide Ex. 'K' are concerned, I don't think it merits any consideration as there is no iota of material to hold that more than eight police officials were involved in the incident in question. Rights and duties are two important wheels which moves the human rights cart and therefore, considering the period of the incident, and background of the controversy, I am of the opinion that ends of the justice can said to have been achieved with disciplinary and supervisory action taken against the officials."

14. We find that even Respondent No.3-Commission was satisfied with

the fact that Respondent No.1 has already taken a disciplinary action

against the erring police personnel and therefore the complaint filed by

the petitioner's mother came to be disposed off.

15. So far as orders relied upon by the petitioner, those orders have

been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In so far as

the orders passed in Firdause Irani (supra), that was a case involving

death of a person and being dissatisfied by the manner in which the

investigation was handled by the police authorities this Court has passed

the order to constitute a Special Investigation Team. So far as the

judgments and order relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Konan

Kodio Ganstone & Ors. (supra) and Rafat Khan s/o Samad Yar Khan

(supra) those were delivered by the Court while quashing the FIR's

registered against the petitioners who have violated the restrictions

Narwade 9 cri.wp-1107-2023.odt

during Covid-19 pandemic and therefore the same has no bearing on the

present case. Similarly, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the

judgment in the case of Satish Banwarilal Sharma (supra), the same is in

respect of taking the said petitioner in handcuffed condition by the police

personnel and therefore this Court found the said action of the police

personnel in gross violation of rights and liberty guaranteed under

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.