IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 1423 of 2012

1. Sadhu Charan Bandra, son of late Pratap Bandra, village

Chhankatta, P.O. P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand

2. Selai Hembram alias Petu Selai son of late Damu Hembram,

village Chhankatta, P.O. P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum,

Jharkhand

3. Ram Singh Bandra, son of late Rande Bandra, village Chhankatta,

P.O. P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand

4. Magdali Bandra wife of late Rasai Bandra, village Chhankatta,

P.O.P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand

5. Purnami Bandra, wife of late Patka Bandra, village Chhankatta,

P.O.P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand

…

…

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa

3. Ram Awadh Singh, son of not known to the petitioners (O/C), P.O.

P.S. Sonua, West Singhbhum

…

… Respondents

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Advocate

---

11/18.01.2023

Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2.

Heard Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent- State.

3.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/ direction from this

Ho’ble Court commanding and directing upon the respondents

to pay the compensation to the petitioners as they were illegally

confined in jail custody by the concerned respondents in a false

case.”

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one First

Information Report dated 10.08.1997 was filed by private party for

alleged offence under Sections 302,201,342/ 34 of Indian Penal Code

and the petitioners were named accused in the case. He further

submits that on 12.08.1997, the petitioners were arrested. He has also

submitted that one of the accused has expired and therefore, he is

being represented by his wife i.e. petitioner no. 5. He further submits

that the charge-sheet in the criminal case was submitted on

13.09.1997.

2

5.

The learned counsel has submitted that the police did not take

care to get the recovered dead body properly identified by taking

recourse to various scientific methods of identification of dead body.

The learned counsel has also submitted that the cognizance was taken

on 06.10.1997. The bail application of the accused persons were

initially rejected and subsequently, they were granted bail on different

dates. The learned counsel submits that the victim namely Shambhu

Gope, who was alleged to have been murdered, appeared before the

Court and upon his appearance, the accused persons were all

acquitted. The order passed by the learned trial court is contained at

Annexure- 6.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

petitioners have suffered on account of defective investigation and

therefore, they are required to be duly compensated. The learned

counsel submits that the petitioners/husband of the petitioner no.5

were accused in Session Trial No. 84 of 1999.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the

judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad reported in

2021 SCC OnLine All 414 (Shiv Kumar Verma and Another Vs.

State of U.P. and Others) and also judgement passed by Hon’ble High

Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2009

(Chandresh Marskole Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on

04.05.2022. He submits that in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble

Madhya Pradesh High Court, the accused was the appellant and the

Hon’ble High Court acquitted the appellant and also granted

compensation. He has referred to paragraphs 62 and 63 of the

judgement passed by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh high court.

So far