Jharkhand HC Orders ₹50K Compensation For 'Innocent' Tribal Arrested By Police, Directs DGP To Prevent Harassment Of Innocents

The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday directed the State's Director General of Police to take suitable steps to ensure that innocent persons, against whom there are no materials, are not harassed and their liberty is not infringed or curtailed at the whim of the investigating officers.

This direction came from the Bench of Justice Ananda Sen while awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to a tribal man as it found that he was made an accused in an Abetment of suicide case and was kept in custody for no fault on his part.

The case in brief 

The case was dealing with the case of one Sanichar Kol/Petitioner who was charged under Section 306 of IPC and was in custody since July 1, 2021. He moved to the High Court seeking regular bail in the matter after his bail plea was rejected by the lower court.

Essentially, the petitioner was booked for abetment of suicide of a lady named Asha Devi, aged about 36 years, who was allegedly murdered in her matrimonial home by her husband.

The basis of impleading the petitioner in the case was the information given by the sister of the deceased to the informant (father of the deceased) that when she had reached the scene of the crime to see her sister's dead body, she had also seen Petitioner sitting beside the dead body of the deceased.

On the basis of this information, the informant had concluded and alleged that her daughter Asha Devi was done to death by her husband Govind Mandal, her brother-in-law Naresh Mandal and this petitioner.

Court's observations

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the case diary, the Court observed that there was no overt act committed by this petitioner, that could attract any ingredients of an offence, which is punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Stressing that the only act of the petitioner was that he was sitting beside the dead body, the Court remarked thus:

"This petitioner, admittedly, is a neighbour, who, on the call of husband of the deceased, rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased hanging and it is this petitioner and the husband of the deceased, who brought the dead body down from the hanging state and laid it on the cot. This action of the petitioner cannot be said to be an action that constitutes an offence, as he had fulfilled his obligation as a neighbour...That being so, this Court was really astonished as to how this petitioner was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and how he was taken in custody."

The Court further observed that the petitioner was made to suffer for answering a call of humanity and that his liberty was not only threatened but was taken away by the State, whimsically, without there being any material against him.

In view of this, the Court, at the outset, CONFIRMED April 1, 2022, interim order of the release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1/- and thereafter, it HELD that the petitioner was ENTITLED to receive a compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the State.

The Court also thought of converting the instant case filed seeking regular bail to a 482 CrPC plea and quashing the entire criminal proceedings, however, keeping in view the judicial propriety, as the Chief Justice, who is the Master of Roster, had not assigned the Bench to hear an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court refrained from exercising that jurisdiction.

However, the Court, without invoking the said jurisdiction, CONVERTED the instant bail application to one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed it to be listed immediately before an appropriate Bench with the leave of the Chief Justice.

Further, before parting with the order, the Court also added a note for the Judicial Officers that while dealing with bail applications, they should be cautious and should not pass mechanical orders rejecting bail applications when there are no materials against the persons seeking bail and also observed thus:

"The suffering of the petitioner could have easily been minimized if the Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara would not have dismissed the bail application in a mechanical manner without appreciating the materials available in the case diary. Be it noted that the decision to file chargesheet under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken before the Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara dismissed the bail application of the petitioner."

With this observation, the Court directed that the copy of the entire brief alongwith the case diary and the orders of the Court be transmitted to the Judicial Academy, Jharkhand for giving appropriate training to the Judicial Officers in dealing with these types of cases.

Advocate Kaushal Kishor Mishra appeared for the Petitioner. A.A.G. II Sachin Kumar and APP Ashok Singh appeared for the state.

Case title - Sanichar Kol v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

Click Here To Read/Download the order