The judgment established the liability of the State and its officials for wrongful prosecution and detention, emphasizing the obligation of the court to intervene and grant relief in cases of flagrant infringement of fundamental rights.

1. The present writ application had been filed by the three petitioners-Mahesh Ram, Ganesh Ram and Chandradeo Ram. It may be mentioned that Mahesh Ram (petitioner no. 1) died during the pendency of this writ application and has been substituted by his mother (Bachhi Devi), his father already having pre-deceased, brother Ganesh Ram being on record already. The three petitioners were made accused in Matihani RS. Case No. 59 of 2000, which was instituted on 9.10.2000 under Sections 302, 201, 307 and 353/34, IPC instituted against unknown. They were arrested, charge-sheeted but later, after eight months released and later discharged as no offence at all was committed.

2. The FIR having been registered on self statement by Shri Pramod Kumar Jha, who was the officer incharge of Matihani police station, immediately endorsing the investigation to Rajendra Prasad Mahto, A.S.I., Matihani police station for investigation. All these people including the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Begusarai have been made parties to the present writ application by name. The then Superintendent of Police is respondent no. 2 and the investigating officer is respondent no. 5.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and A.S.I., who recorded the FIR. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by Rajendra Prasad (respondent no. 5), who was the investigating officer.

4. Notices had been issued to the informant side and respondent no. 8 has appeared. Respondent no. 8 happens to be the mother of the girl, in question, who was the centre of all problems. The girl was noticed but she has chosen not to appear. She is respondent no. 6, Ranju Devi.

5. The writ petition has been filed claiming compensation for malicious prosecution and rank illegal and unlawful detention. The petitioners were arrested for a crime, which they did not commit and what is more important, for a crime which was never committed. They petitioned this court that their right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution has been deliberately, flagrantly and with impunity violated by the State and they have a right to maintain this writ petition for the said relief.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 3 appeared to defend the State and its officials.

7. With reference to the counter affidavits filed, he submitted that the petitioners were arrested on a wrong information given by the girls (Ranju Devi) parents (respondent nos. 7 and 8). The police officials acted bonafidely and became unsuspecting victims of their zeal to perform official duty and if anything wrong happened they cannot be proceeded against. With due respect to the learned senior counsel, as the facts would disclose from the very initial stage, it was the police officials who orchestrated a false case and falsely got the persons detained. The petitioners remained in custody for almost eight months. Their properties were seized only to be discharged in course of sessions trial as they were found to have committed no offence as no offence has been committed.

8. I cannot accept any part of the submission on behalf of the State. Learned AAG-3 submits that in such a situation no compensation is due. The submission is noted to be rejected. I will deal it later on. In my view there is no controversy of fact. While submitting that the police is innocent, learned AAG-3 probably did not take into account that in a departmental proceeding in relation to this very matter the same Superintendent of Police, Begusarai found the investigating officer guilty and imposed a "flee bit punishment" which shocks the conscience of this court. For falsely implicating persons in a crime in which they could be sentenced to death, the punishment was stoppage of increments for two years. The Superintendent of police could well have merely exonerated him (respondent no. 5) being totally insensitive and