PANDU SIDU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay compensation for his illegal and malicious detention in custody for about 15 days purportedly in connection with Manjhari P.S. Case No. 21/98 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 352/98. It has been stated that an F.I.R was lodged by one Jumbal Sidhu alleging that his younger brother Pandu Sidhu assaulted his son Monga Sidhu with Tangi causing his death and assaulted his wife causing grievous injury to her. The case was registered under Sections 302/307, I.P.C. It has been stated that the petitioner was arrested by the Police in connection with the said case and was detained in custody for about 15 days. The petitioner was released when his brother filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa stating that the petitioner is not the person against whom the said allegation was made by the informant and that he is a different person of same name and same father's name. The Chief Judicial Magistrate after enquiry found that due care was not taken in identifying the petitioner and he was illegally detained in connection with the said case as the name and father's name of the accused person are same. However, till the same was directed, the petitioner was in incarceration from 11-4-02 to 26-4-02 for his no fault. The said detention caused the petitioner untold suffering, mental agony, humiliation and denigration infringing the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed to the citizens under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are, thus, liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the injuries and damages caused to him due to his illegal detention and custody.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents almost admitting the factual position. It has been stated that the name of the petitioner and his father are same to that of the accused persons and the Police had arrested the petitioner on the identification of the Village Munda (Head Man). There was no malicious intention or oblique motive in arresting the petitioner. The petitioner was produced before the C.J.M, Chaibasa on 11-4-02. At that time also he did not disclose that he was not the person required in the said case. Since the action of the Police is not malicious and intentional, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation. The petitioner was released as soon as the said fact came into light.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. The petitioner has claimed that he was illegally and maliciously arrested in place of the real accused person whose name and father's name are the same. He was kept in custody for about 15 days. The petitioner was put to suffer mental agony, denigration and harassment for his no fault.