The judgment established the principle that illegal detention and malicious prosecution by the police warrant the grant of compensation under the public law remedy, emphasizing the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III appearing for the State and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction upon the respondents-State to pay compensation to the petitioner for his illegal detention of approximately four months i.e. between 14.02.2014 to 27.07.2014, the day, on which, the petitioner was released. Prayer is also made for instituting the FIR against the erring police officials.

3. Mr. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially only Sanha was instituted on the information of family of Preeti. He submits that on the basis of the fardbeyan of one Sukhram Lohra, the FIR has been lodged, wherein a body of one lady, aged about 25 years, near NH-33, seen to be a married lady has been found. He further submits that the hands of the lady were having bangles and it has been said in the FIR that the lady has been killed somewhere else and her dead body has been burnt. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that while rejecting the bail application, the learned court has categorically observed that there is no iota of evidence except the confessional statement. He also submits that in between 17 and 18 February, 2014, the petitioner and other co-accused have been taken one place to other and have been brutally tortured and asked to confess that they raped and killed a girl called Preeti and burnt. In these backgrounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has remained in jail between 14.02.2014 to 27.07.2014 for an offence under Sections 376(D), 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that in the investigation, it has come that the said dead body was not of Preeti and that dead body was with regard to another woman. He further submits that the said Preeti has come forward and she was found alive and she has given her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., stating her age about 17 years. He submits that in view of that in a false case, the petitioner has been sent to jail and has been kept in illegal detention for the period between 14.02.2014 to 27.07.2014. He further submits that the CID has not found anything against the petitioner and the case diary dated 14.07.2014, which has been placed on record, which suggests that the petitioner has been found not guilty and thereafter the petitioner has been discharged by the learned court on 26.07.2014. He submits that the petitioner was having the bright career and he has appeared in the written exam of Staff Selection Commission and was about to appear in interview, but in the meantime, he has been implicated in the false case and that’s why the entire career of the petitioner has been ruined by the hands of the police.

4. On the above grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for illegally taken into custody, the petitioner is entitled for compensation and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of S. Nambi Narayanan Versus Siby Mathews & Ors., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 804. Relying on this judgment, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and appropriate compensation may kindly be granted to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the public law remedy, apart from the other remedy available under the law.

5. On the other hand Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III appearing for the State submits that during the course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased has been identified by the family members of the deceased and thereafter the petitioner-Ajit Kumar and two others have been made accused in this case. He submits that on 19.02.2014, unnamed accused persons namely Ajit Kumar and Amarjeet Kumar were arrested a