SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 146

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhogwati & A.N. Sen, JJ.
Sant Bir - Petitioner
versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1052 of 1982
Decided on 24-8-1982

IMPORTANT POINT
State Government has to obey the law and have respect for it and for individual liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Imprisonment for life-Convicts mental condition not stable - Retained in Jail irrespective of reports of sanity and fitness for discharge for 16 years - Illegal order of State Government - Question of compensation to convict under Constitution of India - Article 21- Compensation for violation of -

       Held: -

       A. We fail to see how the State Government could possibly ask the Superintendent, Hazaribagh Central Jail to keep the petitioner in custody for a period of three years when the petitioner was already declared to have fully recovered and was fit for discharge. This is clearly symptometic of the utter callousness and indifference on file part of the officers of the State Government dealing with this matter.

       B. It is again not possible to understand as to why the State Government should have insisted on a surety before releasing the petitioner from the Jail when the petitioner was found to be completely recovered and perfectly fit for discharge and there was absolutely no warrant or justification in law to detain him.

       C. It is shocking to our conscience that a perfectly sane person should have been incarcerated within the walls of a prison for almost 16 years without any justification in law whatsoever.

       D. The story narrated by us makes very sad and distress reading. Have we lost all respect for the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person so nobly enshrined in our Constitution that we are prepared to forget a person once he is sent to jail and we do not care to enquire whether he is continued to be detained in the jail according to law or not. It should be a matter of shame for the society as well as the administration to detain a person in jail for over 16 years without authority of law.

       E. We are not finally disposing of this writ petition, because the question would still remain to be considered whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation from the State for his illegal detention in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. That is a question which we shall proceed to consider at the next hearing of the writ petition.

       Sant Bir Vs. State of Bihar

ORDER

Bhagwati, J. - This is yet another case from the State of Bihar where we find that a prisoner who became sane almost sixteen years ago is still confined to jail and has not been able to breathe the fresh air of freedom. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 28th February 1949 by the Sessions Judge, Gaya and he was sent to Gaya Central Jail to serve his term of imprisonment. It appears that the mental condition of the petitioner was not stable and the Government of Bihar in its judicial Department therefore directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya to watch the petitioners mental condition and submit a report to the State Government after six months. We do not know whether any such report in regard to the mental condition of the petitioner was submitted by the superintendent, Gaya Central Jail to the State Government, but the record shows that on 20th November, 1951 the petitioner was transferred from Gaya Central Jail to Hazaribagh Central Jail for confinement as criminal lunatic under the orders of the Inspector General of Prison, Bihar. The half-yearly reports in regard to the mental condition of the petitioner were sent to the State Government from time to time upto 10th September, 1955 and these reports showed that the petitioner was still in sane. We do not know whether any reports about the mental condition of the petitioner were sent after 10th September 1955 nor do we have any information in regard to his mental condition subsequent to that date. But about 11 years later we find from the medical history sheet of the petitioner that he was reported harmless and was found behaving normally since 23rd December, 1966. What was the date on which this entry was made in the medical history sheet does not appear from the record but obviously it must be subsequent to 23rd December, 1966. It appears that this report was communicated by the Superintendent, Hazaribagh Central Jail to the State Government in the Law Department and though, through this report the State Government in the Law Department was informed that as a result of the medical examination the petitioner was found harmless and was behaving normally, no action was taken by the Law Department for the purpose of securing release of the petitioner from the Jail.

Thereafter on 11th February, 1969, the petitioner was again examined by the first Assistant Superintendent, Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala Kanke and the medical report made by this officer showed that the petitioner was fully recovered and was free from any symptous since 23rd December, 1966 and was fit for discharge. This medical report was sent by the Superintendent Hazaribagh Central Jail to the State Government in the law. Department and it was stated that the petitioner was fit for discharge in the care of his guardian or surety and that necessary orders should be passed in that behalf. Now on receipt of this intimation, the State Government in its Law Department should have immediately directed release of the petitioner since he was certified to be fit for discharge. But instead of doing so, the State Government directed the Superintendent, Hazaribagh Central Jail by its letter dated 7th April 1969 to keep the petitioner in safe custody as a criminal lunatic for three years and to send regular medical reports for consideration. We fail to see how the State Government could possibly ask the Superintendent, Hazaribagh Central Jail to keep the petitioner in custody for a period of three years when the petitioner was already declared to have fully recovered and was fit for discharge. This is clearly symptomatic of the utter callousness and indifference on the part of the officers of the State Government dealing with this matter.

The State Government in the Law Department then addressed a communication dated 15th September, 1971 to the Superintendent, Hazaribagh Central Jail asking him to send an upto date report in regard to the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top