The deprivation of liberty by the state following a judicial order for release, due to administrative delays or the intent to appeal, constitutes illegal detention. Monetary compensation is a valid public law remedy for such violations of fundamental rights, as judicial orders must be obeyed immediately unless stayed.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

" ...arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."

-George Washington¹[From George Washington to The States, 8 June 1783, Accessible at: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11404]

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal arises from an unfortunate set of circumstances. The appellant-convict has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of four years for offences under Sections 148, 448, 304 Part II r/w Sections 149, 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860²[IPC] by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Alwar in connection with Sessions Case No.22 of 1967 in terms of judgment dated 8th December 1988. Such findings and sentence were confirmed by the dismissal of his appeal thereagainst being Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1988 in 2021 whereafter he was arrested on 23rd December 2021. He applied for permanent parole on 3rd December 2023 (not having applied for regular parole) which was rejected on 18th January 2024 on that very ground. This rejection was challenged before the High Court³[SB Criminal Writ Petition No.1021/2024]. The learned Single judge allowed the petition vide order dated 5th November 2024 and directed his release on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each. At this point in time, he had already served three years two months and twenty days out of a total four-year sentence. By 25th November 2024 he had still not been released despite complying with the conditions stipulated in the order of the learned Single Judge. As such, he approached the Division Bench⁴[DB Habeas Corpus Petition no.411/2024] whereby vide order dated 6th December 2024 he was ordered to be released forthwith.

3. Before us, the sum and substance of the appellant-convict’s case is that the time in between the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5th November 2024 and the subsequent verification of the sureties which took place on 13th November 2024, and the order of the Division Bench on 6th December 2024 i.e., 24 days, was his illegal detention and consequently he is entitled to compensation.

4. In praying for Rs.8 lakhs as compensation, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant-convict that State officials who ‘take the law in their hands should be made accountable’. Despite the statutory provision and the order of the Court, the appellant-convict was illegally kept in prison affecting his human rights and, therefore, have violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 which stipulates that any person who has been unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to compensation. In making such a prayer, reliance is also placed on number of judgments of this Court inter-alia DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627 and Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141.

5. On the other hand, the State of Rajasthan submits that the order releasing the appellant-convict on parole is in violation of Rule 9 of the RAJASTHAN PRISONERS RELEASE