Right To Life & Liberty Violated: Patna High Court Asks Erring Officials To Pay Rs 5 lakh For Unlawful Arrest Of 16-Yr-Old Boy
The Patna High Court was considering a writ application filed in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the release of the petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondents.
Terming the arrest of a 16-year-old juvenile as unlawful, the Patna High Court has asked the erring officials to pay Rs 5 lakh. The High Court also held that the liberty of the boy was curtailed and his right to life and liberty was violated by the act of the police officials.
The High Court was considering a writ application filed in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the release of the petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondents.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ritesh Kumar held, “In the entire facts and circumstances and the materials which have been brought before this Court, this Court is fully satisfied that the liberty of the petitioner in the present case has been curtailed and his Right to Life and Liberty has been violated by the act of the police officials. The direction of the DIG, Koshi Range to investigate the case assuming the allegations true is against the principles of presumption of innocence which is the Cardinal Principle of Criminal Law Jurisprudence. The I.O. proceeded to arrest the petitioner, a student aged below 16 years without there being any cogent material. He could not have done so in this case.”
“For his unlawful arrest and detention, we direct the State to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as compensation. This amount, we are assessing, keeping in view that a young boy who is a juvenile at this stage has undergone physical and mental agony for two and half months by now. The State Government shall pay this amount to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order”, it ordered.
Advocate Shashwat Kumar represented the Petitioner, while Additional Counsel to Attorney General P.N. Sharma represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A woman lodged a first information report giving rise to a case registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 308(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023). She alleged that in connection with a land dispute, a Panchayati was held with the intervention of the co-villagers, the accused persons called the prosecution side to participate in the said Panchayati, but while the Panchayati was going on, the 14 named accused, including the petitioner, who were all the co-villagers of the informant, assaulted the prosecution side. It was also alleged that the accused persons had taken away the silver chain and other ornaments.
In connection with the said occurrence, the petitioner’s mother also lodged a counter case giving rise to a case which was registered under the provisions of the BNS, 2023. During the investigation, the I.O. found that there was no sufficient material to proceed against ten named accused persons, including the petitioner. After about 25 days, the I.O. received a review note/supervision note from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The note was recorded by the DIG on his own on the request of the informant, complaining that the Inspector had wrongly exonerated ten named accused persons. He directed the Superintendent of Police to arrest all the remaining accused persons expeditiously. The Magistrate then sent the petitioner to the bars. The petitioner thus approached the Court by filing the writ application and informed the Court that he is a juvenile as per his date of birth certificate i.e. the registration card of the Bihar School Examination Board showing his date of birth as January 1, 2010.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that after coming to know the claim of the petitioner that he was a juvenile, the Jurisdictional Magistrate referred him for assessment of age to the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura. The report subsequently received from the office of the Superintendent of Police showed that the petitioner had been declared a juvenile aged about 15 years, 6 months and 8 days on the date of occurrence.
Considering the age of the petitioner, the Bench noted that even the Magistrate failed to protect the petitioner from his illegal arrest. “Because of the misuse of power by the Investigating Agency and failure of the court to protect the right and liberty of the petitioner, he has been made to suffer by way of incarceration for over two and half months by now”, it added.
The Bench concluded that this was a case of unlawful arrest of the petitioner. Stating how the unlawful arrest of a citizen has been deprecated by the Supreme Court, and adequate compensation has been awarded for illegal arrest and unlawful detention, the Bench directed that the petitioner be released by the Juvenile Justice Board from the observation home/children’s home.
The Bench further directed the State to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh as compensation and further awarded a sum of Rs 15,000 for litigation expenses. “We direct the competent authority/the Director General of Police, Bihar to institute an inquiry into the matter in administrative side, take a suitable view based on the materials which would come in course of the inquiry proceeding and realize the cost and the compensation amount from the erring officials.”
Cause Title: Md. Jahid (Minor) v. The State of Bihar (Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3077 of 2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Shashwat Kumar, Aman Alam, Amarnath Kumar
Respondent: Additional Counsel to Attorney General P.N. Sharma