Sanjay Bapuso Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra, 2026

The complainant alleged that on 26 November 2008, he was called to Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji City, by police officers investigating a murder case.

He was allegedly made to remain at the police station from 12:00 noon until 10:00 p.m.

According to the prosecution, the complainant was thereafter physically assaulted throughout the night.

The alleged assault was intended to force him to confess to his involvement in a murder case.

The complainant initiated criminal proceedings against the concerned police officers.

The Magistrate took cognizance of the allegations and issued process against the accused police personnel.

The accused challenged the Magistrate's order before the Sessions Court, which rejected their plea.

Thereafter, the police officers approached the Bombay High Court through criminal writ petitions.

The principal defence raised by the petitioners was that the alleged acts were committed while discharging official duties during investigation and, therefore, prosecution was barred under Section 197 CrPC in the absence of prior governmental sanction.

The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal writ petitions filed by the accused police officers.

The Court held that assaulting a suspect to obtain a confession is not part of the lawful duties of a police officer.

The Court observed that police officers cannot resort to third-degree methods under the guise of conducting an investigation.

The Court held that inflicting injuries upon a suspect cannot be regarded as an act performed in discharge of official duty.

The Court ruled that the protection under Section 197 CrPC is unavailable where the alleged act has no reasonable nexus with official duty.

The Court found that the Magistrate had correctly examined the applicability of Section 197 CrPC before issuing process.

The Court held that, at the stage of issuance of process, the prosecution material sufficiently disclosed allegations warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.

The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court.

The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory protection available to public servants under Section 197 CrPC is limited to acts reasonably connected with official duties.

The Court clearly distinguished between legitimate investigative functions and illegal acts of custodial violence.

By refusing to extend statutory immunity to alleged acts of torture, the Court reaffirmed that abuse of police powers cannot be legitimized under the guise of investigation.

The decision strengthens constitutional protections against custodial violence and coerced confessions.

The ruling emphasizes accountability of law enforcement officials for actions that violate personal liberty and bodily integrity.

The judgment is consistent with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that illegal acts having no nexus with official duty do not require prior sanction for prosecution.

The decision discourages misuse of Section 197 CrPC as a shield against criminal liability arising from human rights violations committed during investigation.

The judgment serves as an important precedent balancing the need to protect honest public servants while ensuring accountability for unlawful conduct.