IMPORTANT POINTS(1)Habeas Corpus Petition – Illegal detention – Direction of DIG, to investigate case assuming allegations to be true is against principles of presumption of innocence which is Cardinal Principle of Criminal Law Jurisprudence – Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded.(2) Award of compensation – When State is saddled with cost and compensation because of misuse of power by an executive, such cost and compensation must be realized from erring officials.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2026 passed in this case, the Investigating Officer (in short ‘I.O.’), namely, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad is present with the records.

3. This Court has also interacted with him in order to elicit certain material information. The I.O. has produced the case diary of this case and this Court has gone through the same with the assistance of learned AC to AG.

4. The present writ application has been filed in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of the petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the I.O. in this case has arrested the petitioner in complete disregard to the powers of arrest and without following the established procedure of law. The petitioner alleges gross violation of his fundamental right as embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

One Khushboo Praveen wife of Md. Amzad, resident of village Sapardah Ward No. 8, P.S.- Puraini, District-Madhepura lodged a first information report giving rise to Puraini P.S. Case No.128 of 2025 dated 11.07.2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 308(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS, 2023’). She alleged that in connection with a land dispute, a Panchayati was held with the intervention of the co-villagers, the accused persons called the prosecution side to participate in the said Panchayati but while the Panchayati was going on, the 14 named accused including this petitioner who are all the covillagers of the informant assaulted the prosecution side. It was also alleged that the accused persons had taken away the silver chain and other ornaments.

6. In connection with the said occurrence, the petitioner’s mother also lodged a counter case giving rise to Puraini P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025. The said case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 76, 126(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023.

7. During investigation of the Puraini P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025, the I.O. found that there was no sufficient material to proceed against ten named accused persons including this petitioner. One accused, namely, Md. Naushad was arrested. The investigation was supervised by the Inspector and upon instructions, the I.O. filed a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 235 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 in which ten accused including this petitioner were shown in Column No. 12 as not chargesheeted accused. In another words, they were not sent up for trial. A reading of the chargesheet which is on the record would show that the same was filed on the direction of the Senior Police officer, while the arrested accused Md. Naushad was chargesheeted, the investigation was kept open against three absconding accused, namely, (1) Md. Muktar, (2) Md. Zakir and (3) Md. Akhtar.

8. It appears that after about 25 days, the I.O. received a review note/supervision note from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (in short ‘DIG’), Koshi Range, Saharsa. It is evident that the supervision note was recorded by the DIG on his own on the request of the informant who had visited the office of the DIG with an application complaining that the Inspector of Police had wrongly exonerated ten named accused persons. The DIG has simply recorded in his note the allegations and then taking note of the statements of the witnesses, he issued a direction to the I.O. to proceed with the investigation of the case assuming that the allegations are true against the accused persons. He directed the Superintendent of Police, Madhepura to ensure further action and arrest all the remaining accused persons expeditiously.

9. A perusal of the case diary would show that the supervision note of the DIG was incorporated in