Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Salim Molla – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against single judge's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's claims regarding custodial death. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. arguments for and against compensation. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal process of compensation assessment. (Para 10 , 11 , 22) |
| 5. definition and implications of unnatural deaths. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. establishing causality for compensation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.
1. The appeal at the behest of the writ petitioner is directed against an order dated April 21, 2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPA 18826 of 2024.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition negating the prayer of the writ petitioner for a compensation for a death in custody. The learned Single Judge held that at a stage when only the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court, it was not prudent to summarily direct for compensation without exhausting the provisions of law.
3. The writ petitioner happens to be the son of one Gafur Molla who died in police custody. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition being WPA 18826 of 2024 seeking a direc
Compensation for custodial death necessitates proof of unnatural death; not every death in custody qualifies under the compensation scheme.
The state is strictly liable for unnatural deaths in custody, necessitating compensation for the victim's family under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of individuals in police custody; custodial deaths demand scrutiny and compensatory measures for rights violations.
State is liable for failing to protect individuals in police custody, requiring compensation for unnatural deaths under Article 21.
The State is responsible for tortuous acts of its employees, and the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights under Article 21 of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of strict liability for the negligence of the police in cases of custodial deaths, emphasizing the fundamental rights of prisoners an....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to award compensation for custodial torture under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the calculation of compensati....
Custodial torture leading to death violates Article 21; State is liable for compensation due to vicarious liability for its officials' actions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
