MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R.C. Lathoti and Shacheendra Dwivedi, JJ.
Vijay Krishna Yogi and Ors. - Petitioners
versus
State of M.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Decided on 4-12-1990
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner - Mr. Vijay Krishna Yogi.
For the Respondent - S.B. Mishra, Govt. Advocate.
(ii) Criminal Procedure code 1973 - Sections 151(2), 107 and 116(3) - Arrest to prevent the commission of congnizable offences - Person arrested u/s. 151(2) - Whether can be kept under custody for more than 24 hours? (No, except with the aid of Section 107 (security for keeping the place otherwise than on conviction) and 116(2).
(Para 9)
(iii) Constitution of India 1950 - Articles 21 & 22 - Fundamental right of personal liberty - Restrictions may be placed by legislation to achieve reasonable object. (Para 10)
(iv) Constitution of India 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention Arrest and detention under Sections 151, 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. - It is a preventive detention - Arrest made by police officer under honest impression of likelihood of commission of a cognizable offence - Such arrest & detention whether illegal? (No). Whether any compensation can be claimed for it. (No) (Paras 12 & 13) - But in present case in case made out for arrest & detention - It is illegal justifying claim of compensation. (Para 14)
ORDER
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. - 1. This is a petition for habeas corpus under article 226 of the Constitution of India, sent by the petitioners from Jail on 31-10-1990, praying for a direction that they be produced before this Court and since their detention is illegal, they be ordered to be set at liberty. It has further been prayed that any other suitable order, in the interest of justice may be passed.
2. The petition dated 31-10-1990 was received in the office on 31-10-1990 itself and was placed before the Court on 1-11-1990. Thereon, order was passed directing issuance of rule nisi to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, to produce the petitioners - several in number - in Court on 7-11-1990.
3. When the matter came up for hearing on 711-1990, a report was sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, submitting that the petitioners were released on 31-10-1990, itself, by the order of the Executive Magistrate, Gwalior.
4. Out of several petitioners, one petitioner, Shri V.K. Yogi, who is also an Advocate of this Court, appeared in Court and submitted orally that the detention of the petitioners was illegal and that they are entitled for compensation from the State.
5. The fact that the petitioners were released on 31-10-1990, by the Order of the Executive Magistrate, Gwalior is not disputed. The petition does not disclose as to on which date and at what time, the petitioners were taken in custody. But the report, received from Central Jail, Gwalior, on 7-11-1990 makes a mention that the petitioners so arrested were kept in judicial custody on 29-10-1990. Time of arrest has not been given in the report and the petition is silent even about the date of arrest. The above report shows that the petitioners were detained under sections 151, 107 and 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. V.K. Yogi has mainly submitted that though all the petitioners have been released, their arrest was illegal, not justified under law and their personal liberty having been jeopardised, they are entitled to be compensated. In his oral submission petitioner, Mr. V.K. Yogi, referred to the cases of AX. Gopalan v. State of Madras,1 AX. Gopalan v. Govt. of India,2 Supdt., Central Prison Fatehgarh and Anr. v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya.3 Bheem Singh v. State of J.K.,4.
6. It is not disputed that the petitioners have all been released from Jail and are no more in custody. It is also not in dispute that they all were arrested on 29-10-1990 and have been released on 31-10-1.990. The only question for consideration, now, as submitted by petitioner, Mr. V.K. Yogi, is whether the arrest and detention of the petitioners was illegal and if that be So, are they entitled to any compensation.
7. The petition was made to the jail Authorities fur being submitted to this Court on 31-10-1990 and when the case was placed before this Court on 1-11-1990, all the petitioners were no more in custody, but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court and rule nisi was directed to be issued against Superintendent Central Jail, Gwalior, on 1-11-1990, when the petitioners were not more in custody. As the petitioners were not in custody, even on the date, on which rule nisi was ordered to be issued, i.e. 1-11-1990, the petition for habeas corpus was infructuous. Yet, the question, whether petitioners arrest was illegal or not, survives far consideration of this Court. If the arrest of the petitioners is found to be illegal, violating the procedure established by law, their mere release from custody would not disentitle them from claiming compensation.
8. Personal liberty of a citizen having been guaranteed and protected under Articles 19 to 22 of the Constitution, and it being the basis of all fundamental rights, utmost importance has been attached to this right, which cannot be lightly taken away or abridged. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure esta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.