The court held that illegal confinement and torture of a person by police officers violate the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting the award of monetary compensation to the victim, independent of any private law remedies for damages.

ORDER

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution the grievance of the petitioner, T. C. Pathak, is that his son Nirdesh Pathak alias Neetu was forcibly taken away by Respondents 4 and 5 and some constables from his shop on 25-8-1994 at about 10.00 a.m. and that his whereabouts are not known. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the said Nirdesh before this Court. After a notice was issued on the said writ petition to Respondents 3, 4 and 5, Nirdesh Pathak alias Neetu was presented in the court on 19-9-1994. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri K. L. Meena, Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr wherein it has been stated that upon receipt of the notices issued by this Court the deponent in his capacity as Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr had ordered an enquiry into the matter of alleged illegal detention of Nirdesh Pathak alias Neetu at Police Station, Jehangirabad and the said enquiry was conducted by Rama Nand, Additional Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr. As per the enquiry report dated 6-9-1994, Nirdesh Pathak was brought by Sub-Inspector, Sukrant Sharma (Respondent 5), Constable 1195 Mange Ram, Constable 1175 Anil and Constable 749 Balister to Police Station Jehangirabad, District Bulandshahr, though the records of the police station concerned do not disclose the bringing or purpose of bringing aforesaid Nirdesh Pathak @ Neetu to the police station and further that upon interrogation of the police personnel it was revealed that Nirdesh Pathak @ Neetu was brought to the police station for interrogation in respect of the cases relating to thefts. It is further stated that the enquiry has also revealed that the aforesaid Nirdesh Pathak @ Neetu was kept at the police station from 25-8-1994 to 28-8-1994. It has also been stated that the enquiry confirms that Senior Sub-Inspector Rombir Singh (Respondent 4) and Sub-Inspector Sukrant Sharma had tortured Nirdesh Pathak @ Neetu at the police station. According to the said affidavit Criminal Case No. 287 of 1994 for the offences under Section 342 IPC has been registered against the police officers concerned, namely, Rombir Singh, Respondent 4 and Sukrant Sharma, Respondent 5, as well as three constables referred to above.

2. Respondent 4, Rombir Singh, and Respondent 5, Sukrant Sharma, have filed affidavits wherein they have disputed the correctness of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed by Shri K. L. Meena and have stated that Nirdesh Pathak was brought by them to the police station on 25-8-1994 and after interrogation he was allowed to go back on the same day and that thereafter he was again called to the police station on 28-8-1994. We do not propose to go into the correctness of these assertions. Respondents 4 and 5 are free to establish the correctness of these assertions in the proceedings that are pending or may be initiated against them in relation to this incident. For the purpose of the present petition we will go by the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed by Shri K. L. Meena.

3. Having regard to the fact that Nirdesh Pathak @ Neetu was produced in the court on 19-9-1994, and he is now free. The prayer for the relief of writ of habeas corpus no longer survives. We are, however, of the opinion that the counter-affidavit filed by Shri K. L. Meena indicates that Nirdesh Pathak @ Neetu was kept in illegal confinement in Police Station, Jehangirabad during the period from 25-8-1994 to 28-8-1994 and was also tortured while thus confined in the police station. This shows that there has been denial of the right of Nirdesh Pathak @ Neetu to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution on account of his illegal confinement in the police station and his being subjected to torture while in such confinement. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that he should be suitably comp