Mumbai, July 14 -- The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has held that police cannot enter a woman's bedroom or seize her personal belongings during an investigation without following due process, calling such action a "serious invasion of her privacy and dignity." A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi Phalke and Nivedita Mehta directed the state to pay Rs.10,000 in compensation to the 26-year-old petitioner for violating her constitutional rights. "Entry into the residential premises of a citizen, particularly the bedroom of a woman, without adherence to statutory safeguards, and the forcible seizure of her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the BNSS, constitute a serious invasion of her privacy and dignity," the court observed. The case arose from a January FIR over a road accident in which an unidentified four-wheeler allegedly fled after hitting a motorcyclist. According to the petition, although the woman's husband was not named in the FIR, police repeatedly visited their home without a warrant or written authorisation, questioned her in the absence of a woman police officer, entered her bedroom and seized her mobile phone without drawing up a seizure panchnama, calling independent witnesses or issuing a seizure receipt. The state argued that the visits were part of the investigation as the woman's husband had failed to appear before the investigating officer despite being asked to do so. It also claimed that the phone had been voluntarily produced by the woman's mother-in-law and was seized in accordance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Rejecting the state's defence, the court, in its July 3 order, found "clear non-compliance with the statutory requirements". It held that entering the woman's bedroom and taking possession of her phone in the absence of a woman police officer amounted to a serious intrusion into her privacy. The bench stressed that procedural safeguards under the law are meant to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability during investigations and cannot be bypassed merely in the name of investigation. It noted that the state had failed to produce any contemporaneous record to show compliance with the statutory procedure. Observing that monetary compensation could not fully remedy the violation of the petitioner's privacy and dignity, the court said it would nevertheless offer some solace while reinforcing that investigative powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law. The bench directed the authorities to return the woman's mobile phone if it was no longer required for the investigation and ordered the state to pay the compensation within two months....