JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : Petitioner, the mother of late Nalita Kumar Dehuri, who was arrested, detained and died in police custody, files this writ petition seeking for a direction to opposite parties to initiate a criminal proceeding against the erring police officers and for a further direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, “CBI”) to investigate into the matter. Further prayer of the petitioner is to grant a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs in her favour.

2.Petitioner’s case in nutshell is that her son was arrested, detained and due to brutal torture by the police he died in police custody. The petitioner was not at all informed by the opposite parties regarding the arrest and detention of her son. The ground of arrest was also not informed to the petitioner nor her son was at all produced before any Magistrate. The petitioner came to know from the media reports that her son was arrested on 09.02.2011 and was taken to police custody along with other two accused women by Ganjam Police. It was falsely alleged by opposite parties that the son of the petitioner was carrying pistol and some live ammunitions without licence for which P.S. Case No.14/11 was registered against the son of the petitioner in Chamakhandi Police Station. In the intervening night of 28th February and 1st March, 2011, Police patrolling was going on as a precaution to avoid law and order problem in the context of Panchayat by-election scheduled to be held on 03.03.2011. At the time of random checking, the police caught hold of the son of the petitioner, who had no valid document relating to the bike he was riding. Thereafter, he was arrested and kept in the hazat room of Chamakhandi Police Station. In the morning, one police officer offered breakfast to the petitioner’s son and soon thereafter at 8.30 A.M., the deceased was noticed being hanged with a blanket from the iron rod in the window of the Hazat room. He was admitted in MKCG Medical College Hospital, Berhampur at 9.45 A.M. and died in hospital at 11.10 A.M. Even though the dead body was sent for post mortem, after inquest was made over the dead body, no information was given to the petitioner in this regard. No step was taken to procure the presence of any near and dear of the deceased at the time of inquest and post mortem. No document was also supplied to the petitioner in that regard.

3.The petitioner being a poor uneducated and rustic village lady tried her level best to trace out her son from 9th February with the help of some local people, but could not found her son. Later, learning from media and other sources the petitioner reached at MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur and identified the dead body as of her son. The dead body of the son of the petitioner was cremated at Golapalli cremation ground, Berhampur on 3.3.2011 a about 5.00 P.M.

4.Mr. M.M. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the decision in D.K. Basu v. State of West-Bengal reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 submitted that the rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution required to be jealously and scrupulously protected. The guidelines provided in the said decision should have been strictly followed, but the opposite parties did not do so in the present case. The police personnel neither prepared memo of arrest nor informed any of the friends or relatives nor any other persons known to the petitioner or having interest in the welfare of the petitioner’s son. The concerned police officials did not notify the time, place of arrest and venue of custody of the petitioner’s son. The petitioner was not at all supplied with any such document. The deceased was never produced before any Magistrate after his arrest. The opposite parties did not follow the statutory mandate provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The provision contained in Section 176(1-A) of Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that where any person dies or disappears while in the custo