The Bombay High Court recently granted interim bail to Anil Rathod, who claimed to have been subjected to custodial torture by the police in Vasai-Virar. The bench comprising of Justice Doctor and Justice Sundaresan observed significant concerns regarding the legality of his arrest, questioning both the actions of the police and procedural lapses under the supervision of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Bajrang Desai.

The petition, filed by Anil’s brother, Sunil Rathod, brought attention to multiple irregularities in the case. The FIR, filed in May 2023, initially named only Anil’s father, accusing him of offences under section 420, 428, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). Anil Rathod was later implicated after the police issued a notice under Section 41A of the Code for Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)

Anil Rathod had been bought at the office of ACP Bajrang Desai on November 4, 2024. The office, located in a commercial space (referred to as a "gala"), had been in use since 2018 after the displacement of the original police office due to the bullet train project. This makeshift office was not classified as a police station and lacked CCTV cameras, which are required by law for surveillance in interrogation spaces. The absence of such oversight raised concerns about transparency and accountability in police operations.

According to the petition filed by Anil’s brother, Sunil Rathod, the detenu was subjected to severe physical assault while in custody at the ACP’s office. Anil was allegedly beaten with sticks, a leather belt, and physical punches, causing visible injuries. He was then coerced into signing blank documents and forced to admit to a financial liability of Rs. 3 crore on behalf of his father, implicating him in the dispute with the complainant, Mubarak Fida Husain Chohan. Photographic evidence presented in court depicted extensive bruising on Anil’s back, consistent with the described assault.

After being subjected to the alleged torture, Anil Rathod was released from the ACP’s office around 5:30 p.m. on November 4, 2024. However, in a surprising turn of events, he was re-arrested by police officers in plain clothes shortly after midnight, in the early hours of November 5,2024. The police claimed that new confidential information justified the re-arrest, but this was not supported by any recorded evidence or developments noted in the police case diary.

The allegations of custodial torture were substantiated by medical examinations. An initial report from the Vasai-Virar Municipal Hospital did not note any significant injuries, suggesting that Anil was fit for custody. However, a subsequent examination at J.J. Hospital in Mumbai confirmed multiple injuries, including contusions and tenderness on Anil’s back, indicative of physical assault. This contradiction between the medical reports raised questions about the integrity of the initial examination and the police’s claim that no mistreatment had occurred.

The Bombay High Court was highly critical of the circumstances surrounding Anil Rathod’s detention and re-arrest. The court noted the absence of CCTV footage from the ACP’s office, which was a serious lapse in police protocol.

Several procedural irregularities were identified, further compounding the concerns raised by the petitioner. One of the key issues was the notice issued under Section 41A of the CrPC, which is meant to provide an opportunity for voluntary appearance before the police, was contested by the petitioner. It was argued that the notice was either not served or backdated to justify the detention. The police maintained that Anil failed to appear as required on November 3, 2024, but the High Court found inconsistencies in this version of events.

The court also questioned the sudden shift in the police's actions. Anil was initially released from detention on November 4, only to be re-arrested hours later. This abrupt change was not adequately explained in the police case diary, which contained vague references to a supposed conspiracy by the detainee. The High Court found the police’s rationale unconvincing, particularly since no new evidence had surfaced to justify the re-arrest.

After evaluating the medical evidence, the unexplained re-arrest, and the allegations of torture, the High Court granted interim bail to Anil Rathod. The court ruled that, based on a prima facie assessment, the arrest appeared to be conducted without proper legal grounds. Anil was granted interim bail on a cash bond of Rs. 10,000, with the condition that he submit a personal bond within six weeks.

In addition to granting bail, the court issued several important directions to address the procedural failings revealed during the case. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) was instructed to file an affidavit explaining the lack of CCTV surveillance in the ACP's office. Furthermore, the DCP was ordered to preserve and secure all available CCTV footage from the vicinity of the ACP’s office and from the Vasai-Virar Municipal Hospital, where Anil was taken after his release on November 4. This footage was to be examined to verify the accuracy of the petitioner’s claims in contrast to the police's version of events.

Case Details- Sunil Sheshrao Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [W.P. (L) NO.23092 OF 2024]

Advocates for Petitioner - Mr. Nimay Dave a/w. Ms Priyanka Dubey, Megha Gupta, Shirish Desai, Ritesh Kesarwani, Krishna Shukla, Pranjali Khemnar

Advocates for Respondents- Ms Sharmila Kaushik, APP