Activist Arun Ferreira's arrest illegal, give him Rs 2 lakh: Bombay HC

Activist Arun Ferreira

NAGPUR: Bombay HC has directed Maharashtra govt to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to activist Arun Ferreira, ruling that his arrest outside Nagpur Central Prison in 2011 violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22.

Partly allowing his 2012 plea, the Nagpur bench ordered the govt to deposit the amount in court within eight weeks.No diary entry showing arrest of activist Ferreira, says courtArun Ferreira was arrested on May 8, 2007 by Nagpur police and later implicated in several other cases registered in Gondia and Chandrapur. He was acquitted in eight cases and discharged in one. After his last acquittal by a Chandrapur sessions court on Sept 23, 2011, he executed a bail bond and was released on Sept 27.Ferreira’s counsel said after he came out of Nagpur jail around 2:30 pm, plainclothes personnel from Gadchiroli police forced him into an unnumbered vehicle without identifying themselves or stating any reason, even as his mother, brother and lawyer waited outside the prison. His lawyer, Surendra Gadling complained to police, describing the act as an abduction.The state, however, denied any illegality. It said Ferreira was required in two cases in Gadchiroli related to alleged Maoist activity.

Police said the vehicle’s number plate was removed and officers were in civvies because Ferreira was considered a “senior member of Naxal group” and security concerns mandated secrecy.The court rejected that explanation, finding no diary entry or written communication showing the Gadchiroli SP had directed his men to take Ferreira into custody. It also found the arrest memo did not show that the reasons for arrest were communicated to Ferreira or his relatives.

There was only a diary entry about his lawyer being informed of his arrest, the judges said. They also noted that when Ferreira was produced before a magistrate on Sept 28, he complained about the manner in which he was taken into custody, but the complaint was not acted upon before custody was granted. Stating that the constitutional mandate casts “a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State” to provide the arrested person with the grounds of arrest so that he can seek legal advice and defend himself, the bench said police had exceeded legal limits.