It has to be stated before stating anything else that the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Thakan @ Nitin Bhausaheb Alhat vs The State of Maharashtra And Another in Bail Application No. 1504 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:BHC-AUG:21056 that was pronounced as recently as on September 5, 2024 minced just no words to observe that it is most painful to stay in the overcrowded jails in India. This was held so while granting bail to a man who had been ‘wrongly’ made an accused. The Court very rightly ordered the complainant to pay Rs. 4,20,000 to him for curtailing his freedom and for the loss of his income.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice S.G. Mehare sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.
As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 of this remarkable judgment that, This is a successive bail application of the applicant in Crime No.485 of 2023 registered with Sonai Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/25, 4/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1)(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 of this robust judgment that:
This Court rejected the earlier bail application of the applicant examining the material on record. The CCTV footage was recovered. The complainant identified the applicant in the CCTV footage. Considering the material, this Court refused the bail. The applicant has filed this second application before the Sessions Court along with the affidavit of the complainant Lahu s/o Ramnath Dhanwate, contending that the applicant did not beat him. He was not known to him. Later on, he learnt that his name was added to the crime. He had no concern with the applicant. He is a resident of Village Sonai. Hence, he has sworn in an affidavit.
Most damningly, the Bench while taking potshots at the complainant’s version minces just no words to point out emphatically in para 4 of this courageous judgment that:
The complainant appears to be a man lying again and again. In his affidavit before the learned Sessions Court as well as this Court, he has shown his occupation as labour. In fact, he is a businessman. Now, the counsel for the complainant says that, inadvertently the occupation is shown as labourer. His earlier notarized affidavit dated 15.07.2024, falsifies him, which shows his profession as labourer. Perhaps this may be an attempt on the part of the lawyer to save the skin of the complainant. Comparing these two affidavits, it is clear that the mistake was not on the part of the person typing the affidavit. Hence, the explanation of the learned counsel for the complainant stands rejected.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 5 of this relevant judgment that:
Now, in an affidavit before this Court, he sworn in that he has personally gone through the CCTV footage and other information. He did not find the applicant in the CCTV footage. However, due to misunderstanding and incorrect information, he mentioned the name of the applicant before the police during the registration of the crime Therefore, he voluntarily submitted this affidavit. He has withdrawn the allegations against the applicant. Consequently, he has no objection allowing the bail application seeking bail.
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 6 of this sagacious judgment holding that:
The contents of the affidavit are crystal clear that he wanted to exonerate the applicant against whom he had seriously raised the allegations. Pursuant to the allegations, the crime was registered against the applicant. He was arrested on 07.02.2024. Since then, he was languishing in jail. It seems that the complainant wanted to put the police, the Court and many more at his finger as per his desire and will. Due to his allegations in report, the entire government machinery was acted upon and the applicant was arrested.
It is apparent that without any substance, he has been sent to jail only due to the complaint and the identification of the applicant. It is most painful in our country to stay in overcrowded jails. The condition of jail and inmates is miserable. Due to overcrowding in the jail, the under trials or the accused often do not get a place to sleep. They suffer from many contagious diseases. His fundamental right to liberty has also been curtailed only due to the false and incorrect identification of the applicant by the complainant.
Most significantly and most remarkably, the Bench then encapsulates in para 7 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that:
The question is who will compensate the applicant for wrongly involving in the crime, and resultantly detaining him in jail for around six months? It is now a high time to take the matters seriously who are putting the machinery at their fingers. No citizen has a right to put the machinery into action on such an irresponsible statement and curtail the fundamental rights of a single person. The applicant has lost six valuable months of his life without any reason.
Therefore, he must be compensated. Liberty cannot be measured in money. However, monetary compensation is the general practice. It is measured on the basis of the standard of living, the loss of income, the inhumanity caused to such a person and the financial position of the wrongdoer. The accused was a labour as disclosed to the Court. He must be earning not less than 20,000/- per month. The complainant is a businessman, though he falsely stated in his affidavit that he is a labourer. So, it could be presumed that he has a handsome income. Therefore, this Court quantified Rs. 3 lacs compensation to the complainant for curtailing the right to liberty and Rs. 1,20000 for loss of income.
Finally, the Bench then concludes by expounding and holding in para 8 of this pragmatic judgment that:
As far as the bail is concerned, the affidavit of the complainant is deciding the fate of the trial against him. By affidavit he also brought the fact to the notice of the Court that the applicant has been involved in the crime falsely. It is a ground for considering the successive bail application. Hence, bail is granted to him. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R
- Bail Application is allowed.
- Applicant, Thakan @ Nitin Bhausaheb Alhat, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount in the above crime, on the conditions that:
- The applicant should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and should attend the trial on each and every date.
- The complainant Lahu s/o Ramnath Dhanwate is directed to pay Rs.4,20,000/- to the applicant for the loss of his income and compensation for curtailing his liberty within two months from today. He should deposit the money as directed above with the learned Trial Court.
- The learned Trial Court is directed that if this order is not complied with, necessary action for recovery of the money as provided under the law shall be initiated against him.
In conclusion, it is definitely high time and now not just an individual like in this case we see is made liable by having to compensate but even the State also must at all cost be made to pay huge damages to the family of the accused who is wrongly framed because it is the State and Centre who are the biggest litigator in Courts and if a person has to stay in jail for a long term, there must be costs imposed upon the State and Centre who wrongly prosecutes a person and falsely implicates him/her due to which the life of the concerned accused goes for a toss! How can this be ever permitted to go on with impunity in any democratic country?
By the way, we are not since last 78 years any longer living in the colonial British rule when the citizens of India had just no fundamental rights whatsoever nor had any other rights and were subjected entirely to the whims and fancies of the Britishers who subjected Indians to merciless torture and jail at the drop of a hat and that too in most deplorable conditions! But now things must change and we have changed in some things but still a lot leaves much to be desired in our criminal justice system which we must have the guts to accept and work unitedly to herald changes in this direction!
In the ultimate analysis, it has to be conceded that State must be definitely made to pay through its nose in fact more than an individual if it wrongly implicates any person because it has got a battery of most capable lawyers to assist them and if still innocents are framed wrongly and that too under the most draconian anti-terror laws by which we see how a person after spending a long time in prison hardly manages to breathe in fresh air and dies as has happened most unfortunately in the case of Professor Dr GN Saibaba!
Only then will we have the right to call ourselves democratic in the true sense! So also I must dare say here that the Judges who wrongly convict an accused must be also strictly made accountable so that no one is wrongly convicted at the drop of a hat and Judges also approach such cases more carefully ensuring that no one is wrongly convicted just because of being framed by police and prosecuted by the State!
Similarly, the police also must definitely be made more accountable in this regard and those who frame wrongly must not be given medals but rather should be punished most strictly! Of course, this definitely cannot any longer be ever allowed to go on with impunity in a democratic country like India as it brooks no more delay and for this to happen we all have just no option but to unite firmly and exert united pressure on the government of the day to not allow this status quo to continue on this any longer under any circumstances! No denying it! The police must be trained more deeply and educated how falsely implicating someone spoils the whole life of the concerned accused and adversely affects not just him but also his entire family!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
