Bombay HC orders compensation over arrest, directs action against police and Magistrate

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22, 2026) ordered the State of Maharashtra to pay ₹su5,00,000 as compensation to Mr. Bipin Agrawal following an arrest that violated law. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata noted that the Mumbai Police kept Mr. Agrawal in detention for 26 days without a basis in law. The court directed the State to initiate action against the police officers and the Magistrate who handled the case.

The Bench found that the police acted to advance the interest of a developer against the petitioner. The judges stated that a police sub-inspector used the police machinery to apply pressure on Mr. Agrawal. The court observed that the police created documents with false details to label Mr. Agrawal as an extortionist and a history-sheeter. The judges noted that the police did not ascertain the truth behind a receipt of cash. The court held that the police failed to follow Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The court concluded that the arrest and remand lacked application of mind and showed disregard for statutory procedure.

Records show that Mr. Agrawal held a Power of Attorney for his mother-in-law to negotiate the sale of a flat undergoing redevelopment in Walkeshwar. A disagreement arose with the developer regarding the sale price. The developer gave Rs. 2,00,000 as an advance to Mr. Agrawal. Police entered the office at that moment and arrested Mr. Agrawal. The developer then filed a complaint alleging extortion.

The court directed the Registrar to place the judgment before the Administrative Committee of the High Court. This is to initiate action against the Magistrate of the 64th Court, Mumbai. The Magistrate had remanded Mr. Agrawal to custody on August 5, 8, and 10, 2017. The Bench stated that the Magistrate failed to apply mind on its own and did not record reasons for the remand. The court noted that the detention caused a loss of money and damage to the reputation of Mr. Agrawal.

The State must initiate action, including suspension, against the police officers involved. The court allowed the State to recover the compensation from their salaries. The court disposed of the petition with these observations.

Mr. Bipin Agrawal appeared as a party-in-person. Additional Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik represented the State.