The Allahabad High Court recently held a man entitled to Rs 25,000 compensation for his illegal detention for three days because of an “arbitrary and casual exercise of power” by the subdivisional magistrate (SDM).
The division bench of Justices Siddharth and Surendra Singh passed the order in a writ petition moved by one Ramesh Chand Gupta (Chandu) who had been illegally detained in 2022 following orders from an SDM in Jaunpur district of Uttar Pradesh.
In 2021, a case was registered for rioting. The FIR was challenged by Gupta before the high court, which was disposed of in his favour. When the in-charge of the concerned police station got to know about it, he challaned Gupta under Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the CrPC, and kept him in his custody for a whole night.
The following day, Gupta was produced before the SDM who, instead of issuing a show cause notice as is required under Section 107 CrPC, sent him to judicial custody pending further consideration of the matter on the ground that no bail application had been filed by Gupta. Despite Gupta submitting a fresh bail plea to the SDM the next day, it was not heard until the day after, when he was finally released on bail.
Gupta’s counsel highlighted that the Uttar Pradesh government had implemented a policy in January 2021 to provide Rs 25,000 compensation for the illegal detention of any citizen by a state government officer and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officer.
He submitted that the high court had also held earlier that where discretion vested in public authorities is exercised arbitrarily against any person and he is illegally detained on account of the fault of the public authorities, he is liable to be compensated.
On the other hand, the government counsel contended that Gupta’s arrest was justified in the interest of maintaining peace, and tranquillity in society as the issue pertained to a riots case. Therefore, he opposed the demand for any compensation.
The high court noted that when Gupta was first produced before the SDM, he did not record any finding in his order that any show cause notice was issued to Gupta regarding accusations made against him.
Further, the court pointed out that it was clear that when Gupta filed a bail plea, the SDM did not issue any order for two days before eventually releasing him on the third day.
Referring to the court’s judgement of Shiv Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of UP and Others, 2021, the high court held that it makes it mandatory for the magistrate to require a person, whom he suspects is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity, to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace.
The court noted that in the case at hand, it was clear that when Gupta was first produced before the SDM, he did not record any such satisfaction.
Therefore, the detention of the petitioner from 11th to 12th January 2022 was not justified…the respondent no. 3 (the SDM) has committed a clear breach of mandate of Section 107 CrPC, the court held.
Accordingly, in view of the policy of the state government and the high court’s decision in the case of Shiv Kumar, the court held Gupta entitled to a compensation of Rs 25,000 and litigation cost of Rs 10,000.
Stay updated with live coverage of 2024 Lok Sabha Election, Tamil Nadu Election 2024, West Bengal Election 2024, Arunachal Pradesh & Sikkim Election Phase 1 Polling on our website. Get the latest updates, polling trends, and analysis in real-time.Stay Ahead With all the Lok Sabha Election 2024 Related Real-Time Updates At News18 Website.
Comments
0 comment