RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for award of suitable compensation for his wrongful detention in execution of a warrant which was meant for another person but the petitioner was arrested and detained.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are that in Excise Case No. 24/99 one Rajo Choudhary S/o. Late Sukar Chaudhary was shown as an accused. According to the petitioner, Rajo Chaudhary is the nick name of Rajendra Chaudhary who happens to be the real brother of the petitioner Raj Kumar Chaudhary. In the said case non -bailable warrant was issued against Rajo Chaudhary. The petitioner says and submits that this father Sukar Chaudhary has five sons, namely, Munshi Chaudhary, Mathura Chaudhary, Raj Kumar Chaudhary (the petitioner), Rajendra Chaudhary @ Rajo Chaudhary (against whom the non -bailable warrant was issued) and Chando Chaudhary. Accordingly to the petitioner in execution of the warrant issued by the trial Court, the respondent No. 3, Officer -in -Charge of Govindpur Police Station came to petitioner 'shouse and illegally arrested the petitioner on 27.10.2000 despite protest made by the present petitioner that he was not Rajo Chaudhary. The petitioners says that the petitioner himself and others including his family members, neighbours and Mahal Chaukidar made repeated requests to the respondent No. 3, that the petitioner is Raj Kumar and not Rajo Chaudhary but, however, their attempts failed and the present petitioner was taken into custody. The petitioner thereafter, was kept in police lock up and as alleged illegal gratification was demanded for setting him free. The petitioner and his family being downtrodden people could not afford to satisfy the illegal demand made by the respondent No. 3, therefore, the petitioner had to suffer the police wrath under the hands of respondent No. 3.

(3.) IT is further contended that Smt. Savitri Devi wife of the petitioner sent a request letter to the Superintendent of Police, Nawada for taking appropriate action in the matter but no action was taken, therefore, Chando Chaudhary, brother of the petitioner reported the entire matter to the Director General of Police, Hon 'ble the Chief Justice of High Court, the President, Human Rights Commission and the Chief Justice of India on 6.11.2002. The matter was given wide publicity and also appeared in the daily newspaper on 7.11.2000.