923 wp 1002-22 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2022 NANDKISHOR BHAUSAHEB JADHAV AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. S. P. Nimblkar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Date : 09/09/2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take action against respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for their alleged illegal detention in police custody from 16/05/2022 to 17/05/2022. The petitioners have also sought compensation of Rs. 50 lakh for such alleged illegal detention. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an offence was registered against the petitioners under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC are non-cognizable and bailable, whereas Section 143 of the IPC is cognizable but bailable. Therefore, VS Maind/ Page|1 2026:BHC-AUG:41728-DB 923 wp 1002-22 . relying upon Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel submits that the concerned Investigating Officer ought to have informed the petitioners of their right to be released on bail and upon their furnishing bail, ought to have released them. However, instead of doing so, the Investigating Officer produced the petitioners before the learned Magistrate, who thereafter released them on bail. 4. Per contra, learned APP submits that a police officer is empowered to arrest a person who has committed a cognizable offence without a warrant, even if the offence is bailable. So far as the question of bail is concerned, learned APP submits that the concerned Investigating Officer, after following due process of law, produced the petitioners before the learned Magistrate, who thereafter released them on bail. Thus, according to learned APP, the prescribed procedure was duly followed and the Investigating Officer acted in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. Admittedly, except Section 143 of the IPC, the other offences levelled against the petitioners were non-cognizable and bailable. Further, it cannot be disputed that a police officer is empowered to arrest a person who is alleged to have committed a cognizable offence, even if such offence is bailable. VS Maind/ Page|2 923 wp 1002-22 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in AIROnline 2024 BOM 2014 in the case of Sambhaji Achyutrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein the concept of illegal arrest and detention was considered and compensation of Rs.2 lakh was awarded against the errant police officers. Learned counsel has particularly relied upon the requirement under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., contending that where a person is arrested in connection with a cognizable and bailable offence, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to inform such person of his right to be released on bail and to make necessary arrangements for his release on bail. 7. However, on going through the entire pleadings in the petition, we find that there is no specific ground or reference to Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners have, on the contrary, primarily relied upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, it appears that the reliance upon Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. has been taken only at the stage of arguments, apparently with a view to seek compensation from the State. 8. From the material placed on record, it appears that the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioners in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and thereafter produced them before the VS Maind/ Page|3 923 wp 1002-22 . learned Magistrate, from whom the petitioners were released on bail. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the action of the concerned Investigating Officer warranting interference by this Court or grant of compensation to the petitioners. 9. In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE] JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/ Page|4