Back
2005 Supreme(P&H) 1281
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
Ram Lal
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal MIscellaneous No. 16357 of 2005,
Decided On : DECEMBER 14, 2005
The State is liable to pay compensation for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, even if the violation is committed by its officials.
Headnote:
Illegal Detention - Compensation - Cr.P.C. - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and others, 1994(1) RCR(Crl.) 18
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's son was wrongly arrested and illegally detained for 28 days based on mistaken identity. The petitioner filed a petition seeking compensation against the police officials responsible for the illegal arrest and detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the son of the petitioner was wrongly arrested and detained by the police officials. The respondents' explanation did not inspire confidence, and the court held them liable for the illegal detention.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State was liable to pay compensation for the illegal detention of the petitioner's son.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle established in Smt. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others, holding that the State is liable to pay compensation for the violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the State was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the petitioner's son. The State was also given the right to recover the amount from the responsible police officials.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Initially this petition was filed by petitioner Ram Lal under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondents to award compensation to him on account of the illegal arrest and detention of his son. The said petition was subsequently ordered to be treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has been numbered as Crl. Misc. No. 16357-M of 2005.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Surinder Singh son of Ramdeen, Caste Khatiq, resident of H.No. 1488, Anaj Mandi, Jagadhari, was an accused in case FIR No. 673 dated 3.12.1999 registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act. In the said case, he was on bail. Later on, he was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 14.2.2003 by the Court of JMIC, Ambala Cantt.
3. In the year 2001, a special team was constituted under the direction of the Government to nab the Proclaimed Offenders who have jumped the bail. On 22.6.2004, on a secret information, son of the petitioner namely, Surender Kumar, who is Harijan by caste and was resident of village Nalagarh/Khera Farm, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, and who was not an accused in the aforesaid FIR, was arrested by HC Satya Narain (respondent No. 5) and his team as a Proclaimed Offender in the aforesaid case. On 23.6.2004, he was produced before the JMIC, Ambala Cantt, who sent him in judicial custody till 1.7.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the son of the petitioner told the police as well as to the Court that he is not Surender son of Ram Deen, who is an accused in a case, and he is a different person though his name is the same but nobody listened to him. On 23.6.2004, when he was produced before the Court, the following order was passed :-
"Accused produced today before me in custody being P.O., being duty Magistrate, bail application moved. Notice of the same be given to Ld. APP for 1.7.04 for reply and consideration. Till then accused be kept in Judl. Custody. Papers be sent to the Court concerned immediately."
4. On 1.7.2004, the matter was taken up and the case was again adjourned for 9.7.2004 and file pertaining to the case was summoned. The following order was passed on 1.7.2004 :-
"Since as per prosecution, the accused is P.O. of present case, therefore, file pertaining to this case be summoned for 9.7.04. Till then accused is remanded to judicial custody."
On 9.7.2004, the following order was passed :-
"At this stage, one Ram Lal son of Rulia Ram has appeared before the Court and he has stated that accused Surinder Kumar is his son, who is wrongly arrested in this case. Hence, accused Surinder who is also present before the Court when asked he deposed about the name of his father Ram Lal instead of Ram Din, which is mentioned in his remand paper as well as in main file/challan. He has also stated that he never committed the present offence. At the same, it is seen that the present accused was got produced before the Court after his arrest on 23.6.2003. On the same date, on his part bail application and the power of attorney, was got moved through Shri Paritosh Kapil, Advocate, wherein name of father of accused is mentioned as Ram Din. Counsel appearing on behalf of accused has also stated that earlier to his production, accused told him that name of his father is Ram Lal as well but in view of the remand paper as well as asking from the police he mentioned about name of father of accused as Ram Din instead of Ram Lal. Bail application of accused in itself provides for that due to the serious illness of his wife, accused could not appear before the Court and was declared P.O. on 14.2.03. The contents of the bail application in itself suggest that produced accused is accused of the present case though fathers named has been mentioned as otherwise that is why he has moved such application for his bail. However, to remove the doubt, SI Sanjiv Kumar, Incharge, P.O. Staff, has been summoned, who is seen
