Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., BIBHU DATTA GURU
Durga Devi Katholiya W/o Late Durgendra Katholiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Mantralaya – Respondent
ORDER :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Heard Mr. C.R.Sahu and Mr. Vinod Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State.
2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-
“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the respondents police authorities to take appropriate legal action upon complaint of the petitioners and to register FIR for the commission of offence under section 103, 3 (5) of B.N.S. against the accused/ respondents no. 7 and 8 at the earliest, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the CBI to investigate the matter on complaint of the petitioners and to register FIR for the commission of offence under section 103, 3 (5) of B.N.S. against the culprit responsible persons at the earliest, in the interest of justice.
(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to facility and provide the govern
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.
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....
State is liable for failing to protect individuals in police custody, requiring compensation for unnatural deaths under Article 21.
The state is strictly liable for unnatural deaths in custody, necessitating compensation for the victim's family under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court underscored the state's liability for custodial deaths and established a precedent for compensating victims against police violence.
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....
State liability arises for custodial deaths due to police negligence, affirming the right to compensation under Article 21.
The court emphasized the necessity for independent investigations into custodial deaths and affirmed the intrinsic protection of the right to life under Article 21, mandating scrutiny in cases of sus....
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
