High Court awards a consolidated amount of Rs. 2 lakh to the petitioner by way of
compensation for his unauthorized detention by the Jail Superintendent,
Central Jail, Gaya Jee
In Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Singh Vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary (Home), Police Department, Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 12-page long judgement dated November 13, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"Having considered the entire materials and the submissions as recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that a consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be a reasonable amount which may be awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation for his unauthorized detention by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya Jee. 12. Since we have come to know that this practice is going on in other jurisdictions of the Jail Superintendents in the State, the I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services is directed to issue appropriate guidelines to all the Jail Superintendents in the State of Bihar requiring them to strictly abide by the Constitutional Mandate and order of the Court without any exception. Such guideline shall be issued within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent State of Bihar shall pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the petitioner within one month from today. Following the settled principle as discussed in the case of K.K. Pathak (supra), we direct that the amount so paid to the petitioner shall be realized from the erring official in accordance with law." Pranav Kumar, I.G. Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, the respondent no.3 was present through virtual mode during the hearing.
The other nine respondents were:Director General of Police, Bihar, Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Jail Superintendent , Central Jail District-Gaya, Deputy Jailor, Central Jail, District-Gaya, Senior Superintendent of Police, District-Gaya, SHO Sarbahda Police Station, District-Saran, District Magistrate, Gaya, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya and Officer-in-Charge, Sarbahda P.S., District- Gaya.
This writ application was taken up for consideration on November 12, 2025. The writ application raised an issue of serious concern for a Constitutional Court. It is well said that a Constitutional Court acts as a guardian to protect the fundamental rights of a citizen when it comes to protect his Right to Life and Liberty. In the case, the petitioner was confined in the Central Jail at Gaya Jee in connection with Sarbahda P.S. Case of 2025 registered on July 31, 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. In the said case, he was granted bail vide order dated September 23, 2025 by the competent Court and the Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Court No. 2, Gaya Jee issued a warrant to release him unless he is liable to be detained for some other matter. The warrant of release dated September 29, 2025 was communicated to the Superintendent, Central Jail at Gaya Jee.What happened thereafter are some disturbing features of this case. It appears that prior to receipt of the warrant to release, the Superintendent of Jail, Gaya Jee had received a production warrant from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar requiring production of the petitioner in connection with Buxar P.S. Case No. 87 of 2025. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 has been filed enclosing certain documents. Annexure ‘R-1/B’ is the order requiring production of the petitioner in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar (Bihar) on 04.09.2025 by 10:00 AM as he was involved in a case of theft punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. Despite receipt of the production warrant, the Superintendent of Jail, Gaya Jee did not produce the petitioner in the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Buxar on 04.09.2025.
The counter affidavit to show that the Superintendent of Jail, Gaya Jee informed the learned court of Exclusive Special Judge, Excise, 2nd Gaya Jee, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar with regard to the requirement to produce the petitioner in the light of the production warrant. The Superintendent of Jail was looking for adequate force and vehicle with fuel from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee in order to produce the petitioner in Buxar Court. The respondents have not brought on record any other communication by way of response from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee. It is also not clear whether the court at Gaya Jee was moved for seeking an order to take the petitioner to Buxar Court. The fact remains that even after his release order, the petitioner continued in detention.
The attention of the High Court was drawn towards the communication as contained in letter dated 06.10.2025 written by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Gaya Jee to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya Jee wherein he has clearly recorded that after receipt of the release order from the local court, the petitioner has been released but had been kept confined on the strength of a production warrant. It is to be kept in mind that the date fixed in the production warrant was 04.09.2025 which had already expired. This is why it has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of Section 304 read with Section 305 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, once the date fixed in the production warrant expired and the order of release had already reached in the hand of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Gaya Jee, he had no option but to release the petitioner. It is pointed out that prior to receipt of the release order, the present authority could have requested the Buxar Court to issue a fresh warrant of production and the petitioner could have been produced on the strength of a fresh warrant of production before receipt of the release order. It was submitted that, in fact, in his communication dated 06.10.2025, the Superintendent, Central Jail made a wrong statement that after receipt of the release order, the petitioner was already released. His own statement in the said letter that the petitioner was still kept confined in the jail on the strength of the production warrant demonstrates that the continued detention of the petitioner was not authorized by any competent court of law, thus, his confinement in jail is in breach of the fundamental right of the petitioner. He was kept in jail for days even after release without there being any order of a competent court.
The Court noted the submission of P.N. Sharma, AC to AG that perhaps, this practice was an ongoing practice, though, it was not placed on affidavit and he has no specific instruction in his regard but what was gathered from his experience at the Bar as an Officer of the Court perhaps, this was the practice which is being followed.
AC to AG further submitted that prima-facie, it cannot be denied that the petitioner was not actually released from jail even after the receipt of the release order. He was produced in Buxar Court only on 17.10.2025. During the intervening period, there was no authorized detention of the petitioner.
Justice Prasad observed:"....this Court has no iota of doubt that in this case, the life and liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed to a great extent by keeping him in confinement for 18 days without any authorized detention order from a competent court of law. This Court is further disturbed from the fact that perhaps the same thing is happening as a matter of practice in the State of Bihar. This is a wider issue. While holding that the action of the State respondents in not releasing the petitioner actually from jail and keeping him confined in jail for 18 days without any authorized detention order is wholly illegal and is to be held as a breach of the fundamental right of the petitioner, we propose to award adequate compensation to the petitioner for his illegal detention and such compensation would be required to be realized from the erring official. It is wellsettled in law that if because of misuse of power by an executive/officer acting on behalf of the State, any compensation is required to be allowed to a citizen, such compensation should not go from the public exchequer, rather such money should be realized from the erring official.
The High Court noted that AC to AG informed that the petitioner was made to appear virtually before the In-charge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar on 04.10.2025 and he had been remanded to custody until 17.10.2025. Thus, his submission is that, in fact, it is not 18 days confinement without any authorized detention order, the actual unauthorized detention would come down to five days if counted from 29.09.2025 which was the date of the receipt of the release order of the petitioner in Sarbahda P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025.
Pranav Kumar, I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services submitted that on perusal of the entire records, he noticed that the petitioner was confined in jail even after September 29, 2025 without there being any order of a competent court of law, according to him, this was occasioned due to the intervening Durga Puja Holidays. The High Court, pointed out to him that even during Durga Puja Holidays, an In-charge Court was always available for this purpose and, in fact, the virtual appearance of the petitioner was done on October 4, 2025 which was during the Puja Holidays only, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be contend that the illegal detention of the petitioner from September 29, 2025 until his virtual production on October 4, 2025 was due to any reason beyond the control of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya Jee. The I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services was immediately realised this and was admitted that “Yes, there is an illegal detention for atleast five days”.
Justice Prasad observed: "7. There being an admitted position that it is a case of unauthorized detention of the petitioner from 29.09.2025 until 04.10.2025 and this practice is going on without drawing much attention of the Department, this Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a silent spectator. The I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services has informed this Court that he has taken action against the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya Jee in administrative side and will take it to a logical end, however, keeping in view the admitted facts of the case as we have already held that it is a case of illegal detention, we proceed to award compensation to the petitioner."
The judgement reads: "8. On the quantum of compensation, we have invited even I.G., Prisons and Correctional Services to say as to what would be a reasonable amount of compensation to the petitioner. He has submitted that a sum of Rs.10,000/- may perhaps be appropriate. Learned AC to AG has submitted that the Court should take a lenient view of the matter and a sum of Rs.10,000/-for each day of detention would be an appropriate amount of compensation."
The judgement recorded that the counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the quantum of compensation to be fixed by the High Court should not be an indicative and symbolic one. "It is a matter in which admittedly, the liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed without following the established procedure of law, therefore, a clear case of violation of the Constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been made out. It is submitted that in such cases, in fact, the Government should have a policy to award ex-gratia compensation to an illegal detenue and such amount which are required to be paid to a person for his illegal detention be realised from the erring official so that the Public Exchequer which is the Custodian of public money should not be burdened with cost and compensation. He has relied upon a judgment of a learned Writ Court in case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad and Others reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 1051 in which this principle has been discussed. It has also been pointed out that an appeal preferred against this judgment of the learned Writ Court in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not succeed and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2019."
The counsel for the petitioner had prayed for an adequate compensation which according to him should not be less than Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) per day. He had relied upon a 9-page long judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Sharma vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215 in which a Writ Court of Delhi High Court's Justice Subramonium Prasad was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner for his illegal detention for about half an hour.
The Delhi High Court relied on the judgement
of the Supreme Court in D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1)
SCC 416, wherein it had directed the following requirements to be fulfilled in case
of arrest. Paragraph 35 of the said judgment (D.K. Basu) reads as under:-
“35. We, therefore, consider it
appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all
cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that
behalf as preventive measures:
(1) The police personnel carrying out
the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear
accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their
designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle
interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying
out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the
time of W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 4 of 9 arrest and such memo shall be
attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the
family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from
where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee
and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or
detained and is being held in custody in a police station or
interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one
friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in
his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been
arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the
attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a
relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue
of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next
friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town
through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police
station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12
hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made
aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention
as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary
at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall
also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been
informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police
officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so
requests, be also W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 5 of 9 examined at the time of
his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body,
must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed
both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its
copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to
medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his
detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors
appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory
concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all
tehsils and districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents
including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the
Illaqa Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be
provided at all district and State headquarters, where information
regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be
communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of
effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be
displayed on a conspicuous notice board. “
The Delhi High Court emphasised the Supreme Court’s observations in Para 44 in D K Basu (supra) also observed as under (Para 11):-
“44. The claim in public law for
compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to
life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed under the
Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to
the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the
public servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than
the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for established
infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since the purpose
of public law is not only to civilise public power but also to assure
the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights
and interests shall be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in
proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the public law
jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for
the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its
public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.
The Delhi High Court judgement also relied on the Nilabati Behera case [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : 1993 Cri LJ 2899] in which heirs of a victim of custodial torture were granted compensation.
- In Nilabati Behera case [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : 1993 Cri LJ 2899] , it was held: (SCC pp. 767-68, para 32) “
Adverting to the grant of relief to the
heirs of a victim W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 7 of 9 of custodial death for
the infraction or invasion of his rights guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to
the ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the tortious
act of the State as that remedy in private law indeed is available to
the aggrieved party.
The citizen complaining of the
infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the
Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the
fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law
by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the
public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts
have, therefore, to evolve „new tools‟ to give relief in public law by
moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and
protect the Rule of Law.
While concluding his first Hamlyn
Lecture in 1949 under the title „Freedom under the Law‟ Lord Denning in
his own style warned: „No one can suppose that the executive will never
be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that
they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not
do things that they ought to do.
But if and when wrongs are thereby
suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our
personal freedom is efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse
of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for
the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and
actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the
new age.
They must be replaced by new and
up-to-date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for
negligence…. This is not the task of Parliament … the courts must do
this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead this is the greatest.
Properly exercised the new powers of
the executive W.P.(C) 3851/2023 Page 8 of 9 lead to the welfare state;
but abused they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be
allowed in this country.‟
The Delhi High Court judgement, also relied on Nilabati Behera v. State of Orisa & Ors., 1993 (2)
SCC 746, while dealing with the power of a constitutional court to
award compensation rather than relegating such person to file a suit for
recovery of damages, the Supreme Court observed as under:- (Para 12)
“22. The above discussion indicates the
principle on which the court’s power under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution is exercised to award monetary compensation for
contravention of a fundamental right. This was indicated in Rudul Sah
[(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] and certain
further observations therein adverted to earlier, which may tend to
minimise the effect of the principle indicated therein, do not really
detract from that principle. This is how the decisions of this Court in
Rudul Sah [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798 : (1983) 3 SCR 508] and
others in that line have to be understood and Kasturilal [(1965) 1 SCR
375 : AIR 1965 SC 1039 : (1965) 2 Cri LJ 144] distinguished therefrom.
We have considered this question at
some length in view of the doubt raised, at times, about the propriety
of awarding compensation in such proceedings, instead of directing the
claimant to resort to the ordinary process of recovery of damages by
recourse to an action in tort. In the present case, on the finding
reached, it is a clear case for award of compensation to the petitioner
for the custodial death of her son.”
It was submitted that the High Court has recently in the case of Arvind Kumar Gupta vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2025 (6) BLJ 52 dealt with this aspect of the matter, though, in case of illegal arrest resulting in unauthorized detention and has been pleased to award Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the Respondents Nos. 9 and 11 for their unauthorized detention in police custody.
The attention of the High Court was drawn towards the judgment in Arvind Kumar Gupta (supra) which we quote hereunder for a ready reference:-“27. In the case of Rudal Sah vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086 while dealing with a case of unlawful detention in jail, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “...In these circumstances, the refusal of this court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lipservice to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated.”
The High Court held that in Pankaj Kumar Sharma vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had reviewed the case laws on the subject and upon finding that the petitioner was made to suffer in the lockup for only half an hour, the Single Judge directed for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner recoverable from the salaries of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who were the erring officials. Having regard to the well settled law on the subject, in the admitted facts of this case where these police officials have contravened the procedures and thereby caused injustice to Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 by keeping them in police custody without any sanction of law, we are of the considered opinion that Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 both are entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each. The State shall be liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to each of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 within a period of 30 days from today and recover the same from Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 12 who have admitted the violation of the fundamental rights of Respondent Nos. 9 and 11 by not complying with the established procedure of law. It is well-settled that for any misuse of power by an officer of the State, if the State is being saddled with cost or compensation, the same be recovered from the erring officials. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad and Others reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 1051 which attained finality as the same has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019.
Justice Prasad observed:"11. Having considered the entire materials and the submissions as recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that a consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) would be a reasonable amount which may be awarded to the petitioner by way of compensation for his unauthorized detention by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Gaya Jee."
Also read: Fate of a Habeas
Corpus petition, after disposal of the case by High Court, CBI finds
Rajnath Sharma, the "absconding person" was killed, burnt in police
custody
