Calcutta High Court
Human Rights LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Calcutta High Court awards ₹5.36 lakh for man’s 60-day illegal detention after he secured bail

JOY KRISHNA NAG @ JOY KUMAR NAG @ ROHIT vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL &ORS

Calcutta High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Calcutta High Court awards ₹5.36 lakh for man’s 60-day illegal detention after he secured bail. JOY  KRISHNA  NAG @ JOY  KUMAR  NAG @ ROHIT vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL &ORS. Calcutta High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner was involved in three criminal cases and obtained bail in each.

Source reference: para. 2

Although 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. 5

The 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. 6

The petitioner sought ₹20 lakhs in compensation, stating that he earned approximately ₹600 per day as a tea-garden worker.

Source reference: para. 3; para. 11–12
02

Issues

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. 7–10

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for that detention and, if so, in what amount.

Source reference: para. 10–13
03

Law 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. 7–13

It held that where detention is not legally sanctioned, the person is entitled to compensation.

Source reference: para. 7–13

The 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. 7–13
04

Reasoning

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. 5–9

It 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. 9–10

Although 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. 11–13
05

Holding

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. 13–14
Calcutta High Court

Original Court PDF

JOY KRISHNA NAG @ JOY KUMAR NAG @ ROHITvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL &ORS

Calcutta High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment