Facts
The petitioner was involved in three criminal cases and obtained bail in each.
Source reference: para. 2Although he furnished the required surety and was required to be released on 6 August 2018, he remained in custody until 5 October 2018.
Source reference: para. 5The State relied on MR Case No. 780 of 2018, instituted following an allegation that the petitioner had violated a bond to keep the peace, as the basis for continuing his detention.
Source reference: para. 4; para. 6The petitioner sought ₹20 lakhs in compensation, stating that he earned approximately ₹600 per day as a tea-garden worker.
Source reference: para. 3; para. 11–12Issues
Whether the petitioner’s detention from 6 August to 5 October 2018 was authorised by law, notwithstanding his release on bail in the three criminal cases and the proceedings in MR Case No. 780 of 2018.
Source reference: para. 7–10Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for that detention and, if so, in what amount.
Source reference: para. 10–13Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that a person may not be kept in custody unless the detention is authorised by law.
Source reference: para. 7–13It held that where detention is not legally sanctioned, the person is entitled to compensation.
Source reference: para. 7–13The judgment cited no specific statutory provision, constitutional article, or precedent; it assessed compensation by reference to the petitioner’s claimed daily earnings and an additional amount for the mental agony and plight caused by the illegal detention.
Source reference: para. 7–13Reasoning
The Court examined the orders made in MR Case No. 780 of 2018 and found that they did not require the petitioner to remain in custody after he had furnished bail in the three criminal cases.
Source reference: para. 5–9It therefore rejected the State’s explanation that custody was necessary to produce him in the MR case and held that the detention from 6 August to 5 October 2018 was not sanctioned by law.
Source reference: para. 9–10Although the petitioner sought ₹20 lakhs and the Court found insufficient material to support that sum, it calculated lost earnings at ₹36,000 (₹600 per day for 60 days) and added ₹5 lakhs for mental agony and the hardship of illegal detention.
Source reference: para. 11–13Holding
The Court held that the petitioner had been unlawfully detained and was entitled to compensation.
It awarded ₹5,36,000, payable by the State within four weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.
Source reference: para. 13–14Original Court PDF
JOY KRISHNA NAG @ JOY KUMAR NAG @ ROHITvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL &ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
