20/04/2024
Allahabad High Court orders State to pay ₹25K compensation to man for unlawful detention
The Court found that an SDM had acted in violation of the law by sending the man to jail for around three days instead of following certain procedures laid down in the CrPC.
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Uttar Pradesh government to compensate a man with ₹25,000 on account of his unlawful detention for around three days due to certain lapses by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) at Jaunpur [Ramesh Chand Gupta v State].
The Court was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by one Ramesh Chand Gupta.
The Court was informed that he was detained in January 2022 after the Jaunpur police invoked Sections 151 (arrest to prevent cognisable offence), 107 (security for keeping peace), and 116 (inquiry) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I found that the SDM had acted against the law in the course adopted when Gupta was produced before the magistrate on January 10.
The High Court proceeded to order that Gupta be compensated by the State for his unlawful detention between January 10 and January 13, 2022.
"The petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for illegal detention from 10.01.2022 to 13.01.2022 by the respondent no.3 (SDM) and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- ," the Court directed.
Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I
Justice Siddharth and Justice Surendra Singh-I
By way of background, the State police had filed a first information report (FIR) in 2021 against Gupta.
This FIR cited offences under Sections 147 (punishment for rioting), 427 (mischief), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 452 (house-trespass), 323 (hurt), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The High Court later passed an order in Gupta's favour, after he filed a writ petition contending that he could not be arrested in connection with these offences since they were punishable with a jail term of seven years or less.
A corrected copy of the High Court order was made available on the Court's website on December 18, 2021.
However, after the authorities came to know that the High Court had passed such a favourable order, Gupta was charged and arrested by the police on January 9, 2022, invoking powers to prevent a breach of peace under the CrPC.
Gupta was kept in custody throughout the night and produced before the SDM on January 10, 2022.
At this juncture, no bail application was filed. On January 11, 2022, Gupta submitted a bail application. However, the said bail application was not heard by the SDM until January 13, 2022.
He remained in custody in the meanwhile and was released only on January 13, 2022.
The detained man then filed a plea before the High Court seeking compensation for his unlawful detention.
"The detention of the petitioner from 11th to 12th January, 2022 was not justified," the High Court concluded on April 8.
The Court held that the SDM had breached the mandate under Sections 107 and 111 of the CrPC.
"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 explained.
The Court emphasized that since Gupta was implicated under Section 107 of the CrPC, he should have been served a show cause notice to explain why he should not be required to execute a bond to maintain peace.
However, instead of issuing any such show cause notice, the SDM on January 10 sent the accused to jail only on the ground that no bail application was filed.
None of the essential elements referred to in Sections 107-111, as noted above, were part of the SDM's January 13 order, the Court observed.
“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 (SDM) has acted against the petitioner against the express provisions of law,” the Court added.
The Court therefore allowed the plea and ordered the State to compensate the Gupta (petitioner) for his unlawful detention.
Advocate Ved Prakash Pandey appeared for the petitioner.
