The court may award compensation for illegal detention, but must require evidence of malice or wrongful intent to justify such relief.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani J. By way of the present petition, as originally filed, the petitioner had made the following prayers:

"a.) Allow the present petition in favour of the petitioner and issue the writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus against the Respondents to release the Petitioner who is illegally detained by the Respondent no.2,

b.) Grant the reasonable compensation to the petitioner for his illegal detention, and

c.) Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may kindly be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner by way of the present writ petition was that despite having been admitted to bail vidi order dated 18.05.2020 made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi the petitioner had not been released from Tihar jail. It was the petitioner's contention that in compliance with the aforementioned bail order, the petitioner had submitted requisite bail bonds on 15.06.2020 and yet he was not released from prison.

3. When the matter came-up for hearing for the first time on 26.06.2020, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi, representing the prison authorities, informed the court that the petitioner had been released from jail the previous night i.e., on 25.06.2020. Inspite thereof however, in subsequent proceedings, upon an issue being raised on behalf of the petitioner as to the delay in releasing the petitioner from prison, certain explanations were offered; and, viewing the laxity and negligence on the part of the prison authorities, this court recorded its displeasure and issued certain directions to ensure due sensitisation of prison officials about the rights of the prisoners, inter-alia mandating that prisoners must be released expeditiously once granted bail or other relief by courts.

4. Lastly, vide order dated 19.07.2021, the learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on behalf of GNCTD sought time to place on record the latest circular dated 10.03.2021 issued by the office of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (Headquarters) Delhi to ensure that judicial officers of subordinate courts comply with an earlier Circular No.18383-508/Comp-Br/2020/THC dated 26.09.2020 pertaining to template orders requiring production of prisoners in court, in-line with section 267 Cr.P.C., and other related matters. Under cover of status report dated 26.04.2021, the said circular dated 10.03.2021 was also placed on record.

5. However, in the course of the last hearing, Ms. Alpana Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that while other compliances may have been made, the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the 10 days' delay in releasing him from prison i.e., for the period between 15.06.2020, when he furnished requisite securities, and 25.06.2020 i.e., the date on which he was finally released.

6. Ms. Pandey placed reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh, MLA vs. State of J & K & Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 677 to submit that the court is entitled to award monetary compensation even by way of exemplary costs or otherwise, as held in the said case.

7. Opposing the said prayer, Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing for the prison authorities submitted that though by its various orders, this court had pursued the matter in order to streamline processes for issuance of production warrants and to ensure that there was no laxity or delay in releasing prisoners who had been admitted to