The court held that without credible evidence, an arrest constitutes a violation of Article 21, and compensation may be awarded for wrongful detention.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. Petitioner appears in person. Prayers made by him in the petition are reproduced below.

"(I) Hon'ble Justices are requested to kindly pass an order in accordance with the Constitution under Section 18(A-1) of the Human Rights Act, 1993, in the interest of justice, to provide compensation to the family of the petitioner from opponents No. 1 and 2.

(II) Hon'ble Justices are requested to pass a just order for the judicial investigation of the above matter by the Law Officer of the Human Rights Commission, who has worked as a senior judges in the District Court and is currently working in the Human Rights Commission, on the complaint application dated 03.03.2023 submitted by the petitioner under Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, 1983, the investigation of which is pending before the Commission till date, and to submit the judicial investigation report to this court.

(III) Any other order by the Hon'ble Justices, as they may deem fit, keeping in view the circumstances of the above case, may be passed in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner."

2. The writ petition came to be assigned to the Bench presided over by a learned Judge nominated by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice on administrative order dated 26th September, 2024. Office reported that said learned Judge, as per roster w.e.f. 7th October, 2025, was sitting at Lucknow Bench. Further report was, at present this Bench has the nomination. Hence, there was subsequent administrative order dated 7th October, 2025 made by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice to list before the appropriate Court. The petition having had thus come before us, it was moved by petitioner in person on 8th October, 2025. He had submitted he seeks compensation for wrongful arrest and detention. He relied on section 18 (a) (i) in Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to submit, there be direction for payment of compensation. Upon the criminal case initiated against him having had been disposed of on 14th July, 2022, he had filed complaint dated 3rd March, 2023 before the Commission, to make enquiry. He submitted further, it is not necessary to seek result of the enquiry because on departmental enquiry made against concerned police personnel, there stood issued order of punishment dated 28th November, 2023. Guilt of the police personnel, who arrested him without prima-facie satisfying himself on credible evidence of the allegation of attempt to rape, was an act that infringed his human and fundamental right of liberty, violated by the police personnel, a public servant. He relied on order dated 8th September, 2025 of the Supreme Court made in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 11244 of 2025 ( Sohan Singh @ Bablu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ).

3. There was further hearing on 20th November, 2025. It will be convenient to reproduce paragraphs 1 and 2 of order made that day.

"1. The writ petition has been called on for further hearing. Petitioner appearing in person, on query, supplies information as noted below.

(i) He was arrested on 17th April, 2017.

(ii) Final report in the criminal case initiated against him is dated 4th May, 2017.

(iii) His bail application was moved and order made on 30th June, 2017.

(iv) He was released from custody on 4th July, 2017.

(v) The criminal case was disposed of on 14th July, 2022.

(vi) Petitioner lodged complaint with the Commissioner on 3rd March, 2023. The Commission issued order of inquiry on 10th March, 2023.

2. Petitioner relies on several judgments noted in a spiral booklet he has prepared. We appreciat