RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detention of the petitioner from 29.12.2008 to 5.1.2009 in connection with Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 24 of 1994 due to mistaken identity has given rise to this writ application by him for direction to the respondents to pay compensation.

(2.) Petitioner is a Military Personnel. During the relevant period, he was on leave in his village. As per his case, all of a sudden, he was taken into custody by Officer In-charge of Hulasganj P.S. on 27.12.2008, in purported execution of a non-bailable warrant of arrest in connection with Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 24 of 1994 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 208 of 2005. He was taken to the police station and kept in police custody till he was produced before the F.T.C.-IV, Gaya on 02.01.2009 when he was remanded to the judicial custody. Bail application was filed on his behalf on 03.01.2009 which was taken up on 05.01.2009. The court found that the petitioner was apprehended on account of mistaken identity and, therefore, allowed his bail application and directed him to be released forthwith.

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he was not an accused in the case at any point of time. The accused in the case was 'Raghuvendra Prasad Singh', son of Rawat Singh of the same village. Petitioner was 'Raghunandan Prasad Singh', son of Prayag Mahto. It is contended that the said accused 'Raghuvendra Prasad Singh' died and information with regard to his death had been furnished to the trial court and the trial court had directed a verification to be made in the matter. It is contended that throughout the investigation the name of the accused was rightly mentioned in the case dairy as 'Raghuvendra Prasad Singh.' However, in the charge-sheet by mistake the I.O. mentioned the name of the accused as 'Raghunandan Prasad Singh.' This mistake led to mention of the name of the accused in subsequent proceedings as 'Raghunandan Prasad Singh' and warrant of arrest was issued with that name of the accused. Hence, it was contended that due to the mistake of the respondents the petitioner was taken into custody and was kept in illegal custody of the police from 29.12.2008 to 01.01.2009 and illegal judicial custody from 02.01.2009 to 05.01.2009. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation.