NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION an enquiry into a case of theft but he was neither detained nor assaulted, rather after enquiry he was let off. But the report failed to give the case number and name of the informant of the case in connection with which the victim was taken into in his custody for an enquiry. The information furnished in the report appeared not to be convincing and satisfactory. So the Commission directed for a fresh enquiry into the matter by another officer. In response to the same, a report dt. 16.3.2016 was received from the DCP, Zone-X, Mumbai according to which the victim was involved in a crime No. 448/2011 u/s 454/457/380 IPC, but on verification it was found that the said case was related to an offence u/s 302 IPC of a different Police station in which the trial had already been concluded and the accused were acquitted. The victim had nothing to do with the said case as he was in no way connected to the facts and circumstances of the case. In both the reports, the Police version was that the complainant’s husband and nephew both had criminal antecedents and nexus. A copy of the report was transmitted to the complainant for her comments. 4.36 In her comments, the complainant made very serious allegations against the Police of concealing the truth to save the skin of a named officer whose misconduct was clearly established. The complainant while asserting that none of her family members had any criminal nexus and antecedents, challenged Police authority of Mumbai to substantiate the charges made against the complainant and her family members. She asserted that not an iota of evidence could be produced against her family members of their involvement in any crime whatsoever. 4.37 The Commission carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and examined the material on record. Police wanted a custodial interrogation of the nephew of the complainant for his alleged nexus with some crime. Though, Police stated that the victim was neither detained nor assaulted but it miserably failed to explain why he was taken to custody at all without any entries in the Police Station records. Besides, they failed to comply with the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court on custodial interrogations and could not give an iota of evidence of his involvement in any crime whatsoever. Therefore, it was crystal clear that the victim was subjected to an illegal police action in violation of his human rights for which the State should be held vicariously liable. 4.38 In the circumstances, vide proceedings dated 28.07.2017, the Commission directed the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra to show cause u/s 18 (a) (i) of PHR Act, 1993 as to why a compensation of ` 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) should not be recommended to be paid to the victim. Vide its further proceedings dated 02.05.2018, the Commission recommended Government of Maharashtra to make payment of compensation to the victim and submit compliance report, which is awaited. 4.39 50 The matter is under consideration of the Commission Annual Report 2017-2018