The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation for illegal incarceration under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing N.C.B. Crime No. 04/2015 (02-2015/16), corresponding to NDPS Special Case No. 17/2015 (N) registered under sections 8/18(b) of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the court of learned AJC-I, Ranchi. The prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 01.04.2016 by which cognizance has been taken so far the petitioner is concerned. The prayer is made for release of the petitioner and to pay a compensation of Rupees Fifty Lacs to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the surviving defects may kindly be ignored as in the impugned order the party name is not disclosed and the said certified copy has been filed as it is.

3. In view of such submission, the surviving defect is ignored.

4. The complaint case has been filed stating therein that on 06.10.2015 in the evening around 10 persons, some of whom were wearing police uniform suddenly came to the “Pataila Dhabha” situated in Barachatti, Gaya where petitioner was working as a waiter and cleaner. They hand-cuffed the present petitioner and forcefully made him sit in their Bolero vehicle. Later they informed him that they are NCB officials. Thereafter the said NCB officials went to one Parmanand Vishwakarma on whose land the present Dhabha is being run. From his house that NCB officials forcefully took away his Belero Vehicle along with his personal belongings in order to falsely implicate them in a drug related offence. The said NCB officials then took the present petitioner and his Dhabha owner Tajendra Singh to Ranchi where they demanded Rs. 10 lakhs from the petitioner in order to release him to which the petitioner expressed his unability to pay such a high amount as he belongs to a poor family. The NCB officials then demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from Tajendra Singh to which Tajendra Singh called his home and arranged the said money for the NCB officials and hence he was not made an accused in the instant case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and one Parmanand Vishwakarma were falsely implicated in the said case which was lodged as NCB crime. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail custody since 07.10.2015 in a case in which nothing has come against the petitioner. He submits that on a false seizure list, the petitioner has been implicated by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and in view of that, the NCB has twice filed the petition under section 321 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court for withdrawal of the prosecution registered against the petitioner and others innocent persons which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 22.10.2020 and on 11.04.2022 respectively. He further submits that the NCB, Ranchi thereafter even preferred one revision petition being Cr. Revision No. 1092 of 2022 against the order dated 11.04.2022 which is pending before the coordinate Bench of this Court wherein the prayer is made for quashing of the said two orders passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS. He further submits that the co-accused Parmanand Vishwakarma was arrested in this case and he preferred one regular bail application bearing B.A. No. 5409 of 2023 and in that case seeing falsity of the case he has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 18.08.2023.

6. The above position is also admitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the respondent-NCB (UOI). He submits that it transpires that the petitioner and one another accused have wrongly been implicated in the case and that is why the said withdrawal petitions have been filed before the learned court which were rejected which is the subject matter before this Court and the direction has also been issued to proceed departmentally against the erring Narcotics Control Bureau (N.C.B.) officials and the F.I.R. has also been registered and the sanction has also been granted.

7. In view of the above facts and the s