Illegal Incarceration For 4 Yrs: MP High Court Awards ₹3 Lakhs Compensation; Orders Inquiry Into Delay By ASJ Court In Issuing Release Warrant

The bench comprising of Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari observed that by illegally confining the Petitioner beyond his sentence, the State was in clear violation of his fundamental right to protection of life and personal liberty-

Thus, it is clearly established that the petitioner remained in jail illegally for a period of 3 years 11 months 5 days which has resulted in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. protection of life and personal liberty…In view of the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner was kept in illegal detention for almost 4 years the State Government is directed to pay him the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

The facts of the case were that the Petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Appellate Court set aside his conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead, convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC and reduced his sentence to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.

While the Petitioner ought to have been released on 25.09.2009, he got out of the prison on 02.06.2012 after a letter dated 26.05.2012 was sent by an Advocate from Jabalpur along with the copy of the judgment dated 25.09.2006 to the Superintendent of the District Jail. The said authority then informed the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara pursuant to which the modified release warrant was issued.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that he was shattered by his prolonged illegal detention for no fault of his. Therefore, he approached the Court for being compensated by the State Government on the ground of violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Per contra, the State pinned the blame on the lower court, arguing that the respective Additional Sessions Judge should have immediately released the super-session warrant upon receipt of the judgment of the Appellate Court. Thus, it was concluded that the State was not responsible for the delay in releasing the Petitioner from jail.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the contentions put forth by the Petitioner. The Court noted that the documents retrieved through RTI show that a copy of the judgment was dispatched by registered post to the Superintendent of the District Jail, as well as the District Judge concerned on 04.10.2006. Thereafter, super-session warrant/ release warrant was issued on 01.06.2012 without there being any explanation for the delay.

While the Court directed the State pay compensation to the Petitioner, it also brought its attention to the fact that there was a delay on the part of the lower court in issuing super-session warrant/ release warrant-

In order to prevent similar victimization of prisoners by the jail authorities and the Courts, since by virtue of Rule 315(2) of the Criminal Courts Rules and Orders read with Rule 768 of the Jail Manual, issuance of super-session warrant/release warrant is the responsibility of the Court to which the appellate judgment or order is certified under Section 425 of the Criminal Court Rule, in such a situation Jail Authorities/ State Government cannot be held guilty for not releasing the petitioner on time. Admittedly, the super-session warrant/ release warrant was issued on 01.06.2012 as is evident from the report of the District Judge Chhindwara along with warrant dated 01.06.2012 which has been annexed.

Accordingly, the Court ordered an enquiry into the matter-

In view of the aforesaid, this Court directs the Registrar (Vigilance), Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur to immediately hold an inquiry and submit a report within a period of two months to the Registrar General as to why the modified warrant was not issued from the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara after passing of the judgment in Cr.A. No.845/2005 on 29.05.2006. If any person is found responsible for the lapse, suitable action permissible in the law may also be taken against him.

With the aforesaid observations, the Petitioner's prayer for compensation for his illegal imprisonment was allowed.