Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mr. Mahesh Jagbandhu Roy vs The State Of M. P. on 4 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9157
1 WP-11149-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11149 of 2025
MR. MAHESH JAGBANDHU ROY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishi Paliwal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vishal Panwar appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners is heard on the question of
admission.
02. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction, declaring the arrest and detention of the Petitioners on 12.07.2017 by
the GRP Officials Respondent No. 5-7 and remand Order dated 13.07.2017
passed by the Ld. Railway Magistrate, Ratlam in Crime No. 3/2017 as illegal,
unconstitutional in view of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.;
(b) In view of violation of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.direct the Respondent to compensate
the Petitioners with a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- for violation of fundamental
rights, illegal detention and mental agony, loss of reputation causing
irreparable damage to petitioners as they have suffered a lot during pendency of
the false case for more the six years;
(c) In view of violation of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. direct the State Government to
initiate departmental action against the Respondent No. 5 to 7 responsible for
the illegal arrest and detention of the Petitioner;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9157
2 WP-11149-2025
(d) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case."
03. The petitioners were travelling on 12.07.2017 from Mumbai to
Delhi. They were apprehended at Ratlam Railway Station by the Railway
Police and from their possession 6 kg. of Gold ornaments were seized. Upon
seizure, they were produced before the concerned Magistrate and
subsequently they were granted bail by this Court by order dated 06.09.2017
passed in M.Cr.C. No.7933/2017.
04. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred M.Cr.C. No.54662/2023
before this Court for quashment of the proceedings against them which was
allowed by order dated 19.03.2024 primarily by relying upon the statement
of the counsel for the respondent / State that the jewellery has been handed
over to the income tax department and the matter is pending before the
income tax department at Mumbai and no further proceeding is proposed to
be initiated against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid offence.
05. The relief as has been prayed for by the petitioners in this petition
for declaration that their arrest and detention by the respondents was illegal
cannot be granted to them. It is observed that on the basis of reasonable
apprehension, the petitioners were apprehended and were arrested. Their
application for grant of bail was rejected by the trial Court though the same
was allowed by this Court. It cannot be said that their arrest was wholly
illegal or contrary to law. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the same ought to be declared as such in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9157
3 WP-11149-2025
Another, 2014 (8) SCC 273 is not liable to be accepted since the said
judgment only provides for the guidelines in respect of arrest and detention.
The same does not lay down that if the guidelines are not followed, then the
arrest and detention would be ab initio null and void.
06. The quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners was on
account of the fact that the respondent/State had chosen not to proceed
against them. Initially, there was sufficient material for their arrest which
was also accepted by the trial Court which had rejected their application for
bail. Thus, the relief of declaration of arrest and detention of the petitioners
cannot be granted to them.
07. Though the petitioners allege violation of their fundamental rights,
illegal detention and mental agony and loss of reputation causing irreparable
damage for the pendency of the case for a period of six years but it cannot be
said that the initiation and continuation of the proceedings against them was
wholly malafide, illegal and unwarranted. The proceedings were duly
initiated and were quashed only for the reason that the State chose not to
proceed further in the matter. They were not quashed by recording any
finding that they are illegal and no offence has been made out hence cannot
be proceeded with. In any case, it is well settled that compensation in the
form of damages cannot ordinarily be granted in a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as has been sought for by the petitioners.
The prayer for initiation of departmental proceedings against respondents
No.5 to 7 is also based on the submission of the arrest and detention being
illegal which as aforesaid has not been found to be so hence this relief also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9157
4 WP-11149-2025
cannot be granted to the petitioners.
08. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere
in the matter. The petition is found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby
dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
