Allahabad High Court Directs UP Govt To Pay ₹25K Compensation To Man Illegally Detained By 'SDM' For 3 Days
Last week, the Allahabad High Court directed the state government to pay Rs. 25,000 compensation to a man illegally detained for three days due to an 'arbitrary' act of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate posted in Jaunpur District. A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I also directed the payment of litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/—to the man/petitioner in view of the...
Last week, the Allahabad High Court directed the state government to pay Rs. 25,000 compensation to a man illegally detained for three days due to an 'arbitrary' act of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate posted in Jaunpur District.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I also directed the payment of litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/—to the man/petitioner in view of the HC's judgment in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma and Another v. State Of U.P. and 3 Others 2021.
The division bench passed this order while dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by one Ramesh Chand Gupta who claimed to have been arbitrarily and illegally detained in connection with a case under sections 151/107/116 CrPC.
Essentially, the police station in-charge challaned the accused on January 9, 2022, under the aforementioned sections of the CrPC, and he was kept in custody for the whole night.
The next day, January 10, 2022, the petitioner was brought before respondent No.3. On January 10, 2022, a bail application was moved on his behalf, but the same was not accepted. A further date was fixed for January 22, 2022, and the petitioner was sent to jail under judicial custody.
On January 11, 2022, another bail application was moved on behalf of the petitioner before respondent no.3 (SDM), but it was heard only on January 13, 2022, and the petitioner was released thereafter.
It was the specific case of the petitioner that despite the bail application moved by him on January 11, 2022, before respondent No.3, the same was heard by respondent No.3 only on January 13, 2022, which means he was under illegal and arbitrary detention in police custody as well as in judicial custody.
On the other hand, the AGA, appearing for the state, accepted the factual submissions of the petitioner, he, however, submitted that the petitioner's arrest was justified in the interest of maintaining peace, tranquillity, and law and order, and hence, he is not entitled to any compensation.
Taking note of the facts of the case, the Court noted that though the petitioner made a bail application on January 11, 2022, before respondent no. 3, an order releasing him on bail was passed only on January 13, 2022. Therefore, the petitioner's detention from 11 to 12 January 2022 was not justified.
The Court also noted that respondent no.3 committed a clear breach of the mandate of Section 107 CrPC as Section 111 CrPC provides that when a Magistrate acting under Section 107, section 108, section 109 or Section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth (i) the substance of the information received, (ii) the amount of the bond to be executed, (iii) the term for which it is to be in force, and (iv) the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.
The Court observed that these necessary ingredients of Section 111 CrPC were totally absent in the order dated January 13, 2022, passed by respondent no.3, making it evident that respondent no.3 acted arbitrarily and illegally.
Importantly, the Court noted that as per the order passed by Respondent no. 3 (dated January 10, 2022), the petitioner was not released from custody due to his failure to file a bail application.
The Court said that as the petitioner was also implicated under section 107 CrPC, he should have been served a show cause notice regarding why he should not be required to execute a bond, with or without sureties, to maintain peace for a period determined by respondent no. 3, not exceeding one year.
“Respondent no.3 instead of directing him to show cause, sent him jail only on the ground that no bail application was moved by the petitioner. It is also clear from the documents on that no inquiry as required under section 116 Cr.P.C., was conducted by the Magistrate/Respondent no. 3. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent no. 3 has acted against the petitioner against the express provisions of law,” the court noted as it directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 25K to the petitioner.
Case title – Ramesh Chand Gupta @ Chandu vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 247