Point of Law: Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of Constitution for established violation or fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of Courts under public law jurisdiction for penalising wrong door and fixing liability for public wrong on State which failed in discharge of its public duty to protect fundamental rights of citizen.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present Cr.M.P. under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 297/2012 by the learned 2nd Additional Judge to the Court the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby learned 2nd Additional Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.04.2011 to 19.04.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 17/2011.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that in the night of 13.04.2011, the petitioner and his friend namely Anil Pandey were arrested by the police of police station - Tarbahar, Bilaspur alleging their involvement in Crime No. 155/2011 for offence punishable under Sections 294, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that respondent No. 6 demanded an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and threatened the petitioner and his friend to send to jail if the amount is not paid. The petitioner and his friend some how managed to pay Rs. 50,000/-to him but he was not satisfied with Rs. 50,000/-and asked to pay remaining Rs. 50,000/-. On 14.04.2011, the petitioner and his friend were produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur where they were granted bail but since the petitioner and his friend could not pay remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/-, they were booked under Section 41(2)/110 of the Cr.P.C. by respondent No. 6 with the help of respondent No. 7.

3. On the very day, on 14.04.2011, the petitioner and his friend Anil Pandey were produced before the Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur and a preliminary order was passed against the petitioner under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. to show cause why he may not be required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 5000/-and one surety for the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year. Thereafter, on the same day, one more order was issued under Section 116(3) of Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate to execute interim bond of Rs. 5000/-with one surety for the like amount for maintaining good behavior during the pendency of the case for a period of one year. The petitioner and his friend produced interim bond before the Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur but respondent No. 5 refused to grant bail saying that respondent No. 3 had prohibited him to release them on bail, consequently, the petitioner and his friend were sent to jail. Thereafter, on 15.04.2011, 16.04.2011, 17.04.2011 and 18.04.2011, the counsel engaged by the petitioner and his friend and surety for them Suresh Kumar Kankshi appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur to get the petitioner and his friend Anil Pandey released on bail but respondent No. 3 refused to grant bail despite capable surety was produced. It is only on 18.04.2011, respondent No. 3 sent memo to Station-In-Charge, Police Station - Tarbahar, Bilaspur to release the petitioner and his friend Anil Pandey on bail on 19.04.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner and his friend Anil Pandey were kept in illegal detention from 14.04.2011 to 19.04.2011.

4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 5054/2011 challenging the criminal proceedings under criminal case No. 17/2011 including the preliminary order dated 14.04.2011 under Section 111 Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 14.04.2011 under Section 116(3) Cr.P.C. and his wrongful detention from 14.04.2011 to 19.04.2011. The writ petition (criminal) was dismissed by this court vide order dated 02.09.2011 holding that the impugned orders are revisable. The petitioner filed writ appeal on 21.09.2011. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner applied for certified copy of the order sheet dated 14.04.2011 passed in criminal case No. 1192/2011. Entire documents were filed along with writ appeal.

5. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 25.11.20211 directed respondent No. 3 to remain present before this Court on 12.12.2011. She appeared on 12.12.2011 and informed to this Court that the preliminary order was signed b