ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking compensation for his illegal detention in prison from 24.07.2016 to 01.08.2016.

Case of the Petitioner

3. It is stated that the petitioner was made an accused in Sadar P.S., Darbhanga Case No.27 of 1993 dated 14.02.1993 for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 109, 331, 332, 353, 341, 504, 307, 431 IPC, Sections 26/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.

4. In the said case, the petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, First, Darbhanga and vide judgment dated 13.09.2010 passed by the learned trial court, he was acquitted after finding him innocent on the ground of lack of evidence. A copy of the judgment of the learned trial court has been placed on record as Annexure-2 to the writ application.

5. It is alleged that on 24.07.2016, the officer incharge, Sonaki O.P. (Darbhanga P.S.) came at the house of the petitioner with some constables and took him in custody. The specific case of the petitioner is that despite his request saying that he had already been acquitted in the said case, he was taken into custody and was sent to Mandal Kara on the same day. In paragraph ‘7’ of the writ application, it is stated that he had submitted before the learned Magistrate also that he had been acquitted in Sadar P. S.Case No.27 of 1993.

6. On 27.07.2016, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Darbhanga with a prayer to call for the records of Sessions Trial No.268 of 2004 from the record room of the Civil Court, Darbhanga. Thereafter, on 01.08.2016, he filed application for his release which was allowed by the learned Magistrate.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-‘A’ to the counter affidavit which is a copy of the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Darbhanga. The learned Magistrate has recorded that the accused Bhaglu Mandal had already been acquitted in Case No.268/04, G.R.No.269/93. In the later part of the order, it is recorded that due to clerical mistake a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. A show cause was issued to the office clerk. He submitted his show cause which was accepted by the learned Magistrate.

8. Learned counsel submits that the manner in which the petitioner was arrested and was confined in prison for eight days approximately, it cannot be ignored on a spacious plea that his arrest was due to clerical mistake. It is his submission that infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India writs large on the admitted facts of the case. It is, thus, submitted that the State is obliged to pay an adequate amount of compensation to the petitioner and the same be recovered from the erring officials. He has relied upon a learned coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 637.

9. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad & others reported in 2019(1) PLJR 1051

[: 2019 (2) BLJ 60], this Court has held that whenever due to inaction on the part of an executive of the State, the State is saddled with cost, the same is liable to be recovered from the said erring officials. It is his submission that the said proposition will apply here also. This judgment was though challenged in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019 but the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the same.

Stand of the State

10. Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned SC-8 submits that so far as the illegal detention of the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be disputed. He has, however, tried to defend the action of the police officials saying that they had a