MANIBHADRA BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that on 22.3.1997 at about 9.00 A.M. in the morning, he went to the Soro Police Station to lodge First Information Report against Shri Baidhar Khatua and his two sons, namely, Prafulla Khatua and Prasanna Khatua who were illegally felling trees and bamboos from a disputed land of Satyabhama Pattnaik of village Sultanpur of which the petitioner was one of the custodians. He handed over a written FIR to the Officer in Charge of Soro Police Station and requested him to investigate into the matter, The Officer in Charge of Soro Police Station after going through the contents of the FIR scolded the petitioner in filthy language and directed a constable to put him in the lock up. The petitioner was then kept in the police lock up and was assaulted mercilessly with lathi and kicks by the Officer in Charge of Soro Police Station and one Shri Behera. The petitioner was asked by them to produce his son, Manoranjan Biswal, who was alleged to be involved in the case. On 23.3. 1997 at about 2.00 P.M. the petitioner was hand cuffed and tied with a rope and taken to the court at Balasore in a line truck and made to wait there till 4.30 P.M. Since it was a holiday, no one was present in the court and at about 5.00 P.M. he was made to walk upto the gate of a Government quarter near the Station Square and, after sometime, he was informed by some officials that he was free and has been released in the case. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 23 of 1995 on 23.3.1997. In the said order, the learned Sessions Judge stated that non bailable warrant of arrest had been issued against the accused Manoranjan Biswal and non bailable warrant of arrest was not issued against the petitioner who was on bail and hence he was released from custody. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that he was detained in police custody and was also physically assaulted and ill treated in police custody from 22.3.1997 morning to the after noon of 23.3.1997 without any authority of law and his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated, and he has prayed for punishment of opp. party No. 4 and other police officials and for compensation for violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR . D. N. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it will be clear from the order dated 23.3.1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 23 of 1995, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 1, that non bailable warrant of arrest had been issued against Manoranjan Biswal and not against the petitioner and, therefore, the police officials had no authority whatsoever under law to arrest the petitioner on 23.3.1997 and to put him under police lock up and thereafter produce him before the court on 23.3.1997 and for such unauthorised arrest and illegal detention, the petitioner was entitled to compensation from the State for violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He further submitted that while the petitioner was under police lock up he was also physically assaulted by police officials with lathi and kick blows and for such physical assaults, the petitioner was also entitled to compensation. He vehemently argued that orders should also be passed by this Court for punishing the Officer in Charge of Soro Police Station and other police officials of the said Police Station for the aforesaid illegal acts. Mr. Lenka cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr., AIR 1983 SC 1086, Bhim Singh, MLA. v. State of J and K and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 499 and Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 117 in support of his submission that a person whose right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is affected by illegal arrest or detention is entitled to compensation.

(3.) PARAGRAPHS 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the opp. parties 3 and 4 are extracted herein below :