Declaring the arrest of an elected councillor of a local body for being an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) as “unlawful”, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has held that a mere apprehension that the person may indulge in illegal activities in future is insufficient ground to justify arrest under section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The central government declared the PFI and its affiliates as ‘Unlawful Association’ under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on September 27, 2022. The petitioner, Sarfaraz Sayyad, a municipal councillor from Valpoi Municipal Council, was arrested on September 29, 2022, along with three other people, by the Goa Police by invoking section 151 of CrPC on the premise that he is a member of the PFI.
After being produced before the court, they were directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each and a surety residing within the local limits of Valpoi police station of Rs 1 lakh. The petitioner challenged this order.
In an order passed on August 11, a Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P Mehta said the police did not place sufficient material before the magistrate, except for stating that the PFI was declared as an Unlawful Association under the UAPA and it was suspected that the members of PFI are likely to indulge in activities, which were likely to disturb the peace in the locality.
“No other specific material was placed before the Magistrate regarding the design or intention to indulge in any cognisable offence, which could not have been prevented unless and until he was arrested. The mere apprehension that the person may indulge in illegal activities in future and there is a possibility of breach of peace in the locality or commission of any cognisable offence, according to us, is not sufficient ground which would justify exercise of this power,” the court said.
The power conferred on the police officer necessarily must be discharged with accountability and responsibility, the court said.
“We do not find any material in that regard as we have noted that except expressing an apprehension of likelihood of such activity being committed, with no concrete material establishing the link of the petitioner with the PFI or substantially establishing that he has indulged in activities of the Unlawful Association in the past giving rise to an apprehension that he may indulge into the said activities, upon it being declared an Unlawful Association, is conspicuously absent,” the court went on to say.
Story continues below this ad
The court stressed that the petitioner has a right to contend that his image in the society has been tarnished on account of his wrongful arrest without any incriminating material justifying the arrest under the said provision.
“When we test the aforesaid arrest in the backdrop of Article 21, i.e. ‘right to life and liberty’, which has considered a right to reputation as a cherished right and an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the term ‘life’ is of wider amplitude and necessarily convey, life with dignity and involve reputation of a person, with the petitioner being enjoying a position in the society, he definitely has a right to contend that his image in the society has been tarnished on account of the action of his wrongful arrest without sufficiency of the material justifying such an arrest under Section 151 of the CrPC,” the court said.
The court thus held that the arrest of the petitioner is “liable to be declared as unlawful” and granted him liberty to seek compensation before an appropriate forum.
