The State can be liable for compensation in cases of custodial death, irrespective of concurrent criminal proceedings.

1. The prayers in the writ petition at the final hearing stage is limited to a claim for compensation for custodial death.

2. Relying upon 1993 (2) SCC 746 : AIR 1993 SC 1960 (Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors.) learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, since the death of the accused, who was the husband of the petitioner had occurred in the custody of the police, the State ought to grant compensation for such custodial death keeping aside the fact that the death may have occurred by self destruction or otherwise. He submits that, the issue of the cause of death is pending in an appropriate criminal proceeding, the Writ Court need not enter into that arena. However, since death of the accused had occurred in the custody of the police, he submits that, appropriate compensation should be granted. On the question as to the quantum of compensation, he submits that, the writ petitioner is the widow of the accused. The accused has left behind two children apart from the petitioner. These factors need be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding the quantum of compensation to be paid for the custodial death.

3. Learned advocate for the State refers to the affidavit - in - opposition and submits that, the accused was taken into custody on February 15, 2015. He draws the attention of the Court to the various paragraphs of the affidavit - in - opposition and submits that, the affidavit - in - opposition gives detailed narration of the incidents happening after the accused was taken into custody. He submits that, the accused was found at the toilet of the male lockup in a partially hanging position. He refers to 2009 (11) SCC 376 ( AIR 2009 SC 1674 ) ( Dalbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) and submits that, since the criminal proceeding with regard to the death of the accused is pending consideration, the Court should not consider the prayer for compensation at this stage by way of a writ petition.

4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

5. As noted above, the claim in the writ petition is limited to compensation for custodial death. The affidavit - in - opposition establishes that, the accused was taken into custody on February 15, 2014. The death occurred at the time when the accused was admittedly in the custody of the police on such date. The explanation and justification of the cause of death are issues, which are to be considered in the appropriate criminal proceeding. The fact that one of the police officers has been proceeded against also will not denude the right of the petitioner to receive compensation for custodial death of her husband.

6. Nilabati Behera, AIR 1993 SC 1960 (supra) is of the view that, in the event, the State violating any fundamental right of a citizen, the Court can direct the State to pay compensation to the victim or his heir by way of money. It goes on to say that where custodial death is established, the Court should take into consideration the age of the deceased and the monthly income of the deceased and direct suitable compensation to be paid by the State. This compensation would be besides the right of the petitioner to claim compensation in other proceedings where the quantum of compensation that may be awarded can be looked at.

7. Dalbir Singh (supra) is a case where the Supreme Court in the facts finds that, the question whether the accused was in custody or not at the material point of time of the death was an issue, which was required to be looked at and which was being looked at in a pending criminal proceeding. Since such fact was yet to be conclusively astonished, their Lor