Smt. Leela Devi vs State of Bihar

Aftab Alam, J.—A petition from one Leela Devi addressed to the Hon''ble the Chief Justice was received in this Court on 7.7.1995. According to this petition her son Rajesh Dom was arrested on 6.2.1995 as an accused in Danapur P.S. Case No. 22/95. He was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna on 17.5.1995 and the order of release was received by the Jailor, Beur Jail, Patna. Yet her son was not released on the ground that he had been also remanded in Danapur P.S. Case No. 3/95. It was further stated that on enquiry she found that her son Rajesh Dom has not been remanded in Danapur P.S. Case No. 3/95. On 27.5.1995 she filed a petition before the A.C.J.M. Danapur with a prayer that the Jailor, Beur Patna be directed to release her son. That petition was rejected by the A.C.J.M. on the ground that Rajesh Dom son of Ram Prasad Dom, Gora Bazar, Danapur had not been remanded in Danapur P.S. Case No. 3/95 and there was, therefore, no question to give any direction to the Jailor. In this petition, accordingly, she made a prayer that appropriate direction be issued for the release of her son.

The Hon''ble the Chief Justice called for a report from the Session Judge, Patna and on receipt of the report directed that the petition be registered as a writ case and be listed for admission before the court.

Mr. Anjana Prakash appearing amicus curiae in this case has given valuable assistance to this Court Mr. Ganga Prasad Rai, learned A.A.G. III has appeared on behalf of the Jail Authorities and has fairly placed all the facts with no attempt to cover up any mistake or to withold any material. I record my appreciation for the assistance provided to the court both by Mrs. Prakash and Mr. Rai.

The admitted position is that Rajesh Dom, the son of the Petitioners is an accused in Danapur P.S. Case No. 22/95 for offences punishable under Sections 399, 402, 307 and 353 of the Penal Code. He was granted bail in this case on 17.5.1995 by the Sessions Judge, Patna. He was finally released from the jail on 29.6.1996. The cause for the delay (of about a month and half) in his release was that in the meanwhile he was being wrongly produced in court and remanded by it is Danapur P.S. Case No. 3/95 though admittedly he was not an accused in this case. This mistake which led to the delay in his release, according to the jail authorities, occurred in the following circumstances.

It is stated that Rajesh Dom @ Burhwa Dom of Gora Bazar, Danapur was an accused in three cases:

(i) Maner P.S. Case No. 17/95 u/s 395 I.P.C. (in this case he was granted bail earlier)

(ii) Maner P.S. Case No. 18/95 u/s 395 I.P.C. and (In this case too he was granted bail earlier)

(iii) Danapur P.S. Case No. 22/95 under Sections 399, 402, 307 and 353 I.P.C.

In the first two cases he was described as the son of Ram Chandra Dom but in the third case (Danapur P.S. Case No. 22/95) he was described as the son of Ram Prasad Dom. To add to this confusion there was another Burhwa Dom @ Rajesh Dom son of Mahendra Dom who was also an accused (along with the Petitioner''s son) in Danapur P.S. Case No. 22/95. In this background a custody warrant was received from the court of A.C.J.M., Danapur to produce "Rajesh Dom @ Burhwa Dom son of Ram Chandra Dom of Gora Bazar, Danapur" in Danapur P.S. Case No. 3/95. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Aadarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna this led to the production of Rajesh Dom, the son of the Petitioner in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 3/95. It is further stated that after being remanded in Danapur P.S. Case No. 3/95 has was produced in the court of the A.C.J.M., Danapur on 1.5.1995, 15.5.1995, 20.5.1995, 12.6.1995 and 21.6.1995. It is plainly admitted that on those dates no one including the court made an attempt to verify as to whether the prisoner being produced in the case was actually an accused in that case. It was only after the mistake was detected that the Petitioner was finally released on 29.6.1995 on bail granted to him in Danapur P.S. Case No. 22/95.

On the basis of the facts and circumstances recorded above, I am satisfied that the mistake though highly regretable was not wilful or deliberate but a genuine and bonafide one.

Mrs. Prakash, however, would hear nothing of it and according to her the Petitioner''s son is entitled to some compensation for his illegal detention for about a month and half. She has a point though, because viewed from the point of the Petitioner''s son, mistake or no mistake his detention in jail after 17.5.1995 was wholly illegal and unauthorised. The detention having no legal sanction was thus violative of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, find myself in agreement with Mrs. Prakash''s submission that the Petitioner''s son is entitled to some compensation.

The next question for consideration would be what would be the amount of compensation? Mrs. Prakash referred to a Supreme Court decision in Smt. Nikbati Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1993 S.C. 1960. That was a case where the Petitioner''s son, aged about 22 years, had suffered custodial death. His monthly income at the time of his death was assessed between Rs. 1200-1500 and payment of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- was considered appropriate.

In this case after hearing Mrs. Prakash and Mr. Rai and after taking into consideration all the material facts and circumstances I think the ends of justice would meet by awarding compensation to the Petitioner''s son in the following manner:

(i) Rs. 30 per day (the minimum wages fixed for an unskilled worker in most of the employment) for each day of his illegal detention from 18.5.1995 to 29.6.1995 i.e. a sum of Rs. 1290/-. This would cover the loss of his earing during the period of his detention;

(ii) in addition to the above a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for curtailment of his freedom illegally. The State Government in the department of Home and the S.D.O. Danapur are jointly directed to pay the aforesaid sum to the Petitioner''s son within a month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The A.C.J.M., Danapur and the Superintendent, Adarsh Central Jail Beur Patna are also warned to be more careful in future regarding the identity of the accused when a prisoner is produced in court and is remanded to custody.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.