1/2 46-Cri.WP-463-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.463 OF 2026 RAJESH BHAIYYALAL KOTHARE VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MANTRALAYA MUMBAI AND ORS. - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P. K. Dahat, Advocate (Appointed) for petitioner. Ms Shamsi Haider, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondents. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ. DATED : September 16, 2026 P. C. Writ Petition seeks following reliefs : (a) Direct the respondent to hold the enquiry against the then PSI Nagalkar and PSI B. D. Masram P.S. Gadge Nagar Amravati city, Amravati illegally detaining the petitioner and others for the offence which was not committed by him. (b) Hold and Declare that the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation from the respondent as the personal liberty of the petitioner is violated by the employee of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is appointed through Legal Aid, by inviting our attention to the judgment delivered by the Court of Sessions, Amravati when five persons including the petitioner were tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code submits that the Court in its judgment from paragraphs 21 to 23 has observed that the Investigating Officer has admitted in cross- examination that it was difficult to file charge-sheet by him on production of station diary and it is the case of the petitioner that though there was no material sufficient enough to file even an 2026:BHC-NAG:12416-DB 2/2 46-Cri.WP-463-26.odt FIR, upon conducting a sham investigation, it was shown to be concluded and charge-sheet was also filed. The petitioner was behind the bar for 11 months and therefore he seeks a direction to conduct an enquiry against the then Investigating Officers for illegally detaining the petitioner and grant compensation. 3. Admittedly, when we put a query to the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner ever sought anticipatory bail/bail and that was refused, his response is in the positive. If at all the petitioner blames the Investigating Officers for wrongly roping him and involving him with malafide intention, definitely a remedy is open either in the form of malicious prosecution and even for damages and costs and they are entitled to approach the competent Court which can ascertain the damages based on the loss which is caused and compensate them and the Court would be enough competent to award compensation for deprivation of personal liberty. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, merely because the judgment of acquittal is passed, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. Hence we dismiss the writ petition. 4. Fees of the Advocate appointed be paid as per the Rules by Legal Aid. ( Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (Bharati Dangre, J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 19:45:18