Delhi High Court
Sanjay Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi ... on 30 September, 2021
$~S~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th September 2021
+ W.P. (CRL.) 974/2020
SANJAY SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Alpana Pandey, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI & ANR
...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel
(Criminal) for the State. Mr. Kanwal
Jeet Arora, Member Secretary,
DSLSA along with Mr. S. K. Sethi
and Ms. Dolly Sharma Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
By way of the present petition, as originally filed, the petitioner had
made the following prayers:
"a.) Allow the present petition in favour of the petitioner and
issue the writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus against the
Respondents to release the Petitioner who is illegally detained by
the Respondent no.2,
b.) Grant the reasonable compensation to the petitioner for his
illegal detention, and
c.) Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice."
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT
Location:
10:34:29
2. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner by way of the present
writ petition was that despite having been admitted to bail vidé order
dated 18.05.2020 made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi the petitioner had not been released from
Tihar jail. It was the petitioner's contention that in compliance with the
aforementioned bail order, the petitioner had submitted requisite bail
bonds on 15.06.2020 and yet he was not released from prison.
3. When the matter came-up for hearing for the first time on 26.06.2020,
learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing for the Government of
NCT of Delhi, representing the prison authorities, informed the court
that the petitioner had been released from jail the previous night i.e., on
25.06.2020. Inspite thereof however, in subsequent proceedings, upon
an issue being raised on behalf of the petitioner as to the delay in
releasing the petitioner from prison, certain explanations were offered;
and, viewing the laxity and negligence on the part of the prison
authorities, this court recorded its displeasure and issued certain
directions to ensure due sensitisation of prison officials about the rights
of the prisoners, inter-alia mandating that prisoners must be released
expeditiously once granted bail or other relief by courts.
4. Lastly, vidé order dated 19.07.2021, the learned Standing Counsel
(Criminal) appearing on behalf of GNCTD sought time to place on
record the latest circular dated 10.03.2021 issued by the office of the
learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (Headquarters) Delhi to
ensure that judicial officers of subordinate courts comply with an
earlier Circular No.18383-508/Comp-Br/2020/THC dated 26.09.2020
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT
Location:
10:34:29
pertaining to template orders requiring production of prisoners in court,
in-line with section 267 Cr.P.C., and other related matters. Under cover
of status report dated 26.04.2021, the said circular dated 10.03.2021
was also placed on record.
5. However, in the course of the last hearing, Ms. Alpana Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that while other
compliances may have been made, the petitioner deserves to be
compensated for the 10 days' delay in releasing him from prison i.e.,
for the period between 15.06.2020, when he furnished requisite
securities, and 25.06.2020 i.e., the date on which he was finally
released.
6. Ms. Pandey placed reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Bhim Singh, MLA vs. State of J & K & Ors1 to submit that
the court is entitled to award monetary compensation even by way of
exemplary costs or otherwise, as held in the said case.
7. Opposing the said prayer, Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel
(Criminal) appearing for the prison authorities submitted that though by
its various orders, this court had pursued the matter in order to
streamline processes for issuance of production warrants and to ensure
that there was no laxity or delay in releasing prisoners who had been
admitted to bail, in so far as the petitioner's own case is concerned, that
stood closed inter-alia vidé order dated 26.06.2020, and no further
relief ought to be granted to the petitioner.
(1985) 4 SCC 677
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT
Location:
10:34:29
8. In order to address the above contention, this court notices the
following portions of various orders made in the course of the present
proceedings:
Order dated 26.06.2020
" ******
6. While the relief in the present petition does not survive as the
petitioner has been released though belatedly, it is deemed
appropriate to take the matter to its logical conclusion by directing
the respondent to file an affidavit stating inter alia the date on
which a copy of the order dated 18th May, 2020 passed by the
learned MM, South-West, Dwarka, New Delhi, admitting the
petitioner to bail was served on the jail authorities and explaining
the reasons for illegally detaining him till late last night. The said
affidavit shall be filed by the Superintendent Jail, Jail No.1, Tihar
Jail, within 3 days with a copy furnished to learned counsel for the
petitioner.
****** "
Order dated 06.07.2020
" ******
1. On the last date of hearing i.e., on 26.6.2020, we had recorded
that while the relief in the present petition filed by the petitioner
stating inter alia that he had been illegally detained in jail, did not
survive as he had been released from jail a night before i.e., on
25.6.2020, it was deemed appropriate to direct the respondent/Jail
Authorities to file an affidavit explaining the reason for illegally
detaining the petitioner after the order dated 18.5.2020, was passed
by the learned MM Dwarka Courts, New Delhi admitting him to
bail.
****** "
Order dated 06.08.2020
" ******
3. Having perused the Status Report filed by the D.G. (Prisons), we
propose to let the matter rest here. However, taking note of the
explanation sought to be offered by the Superintendent, Central
Jail-I, for unlawfully detaining the petitioner in prison beyond
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT
Location:
10:34:29
20.06.2020, we are of the opinion that officers posted in the jails,
particularly, those of the rank of the Superintendents, Deputy
Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents must be apprised of
their duties and obligations in law so that such an incident is not
repeated in the future.
****** "
(emphasis supplied)
9. On a combined reading of the aforesaid orders, we are inclined to agree
with Mr. Lao's submission that insofar as the petitioner's own case is
concerned, considering the prayers made in the petition and the fact
that the petitioner stood released from prison even before the very first
date of hearing in this matter, nothing further survives insofar as the
prayers made in the petition are concerned; and that it was so observed
by the Bench in the orders extracted above. Upon a conspectus of the
status reports filed and the apologies and explanations tendered, the
court had laid the matter to rest, save and except only the course-
corrective measures that were taken subsequently.
10. Insofar as the petitioner's reliance on the decision in Bhim Singh, MLA
(supra) is concerned, we may only note that in the concluding portion
of that judgment, the Supreme Court says:
"2. ........... That we have the right to award monetary compensation
by way of exemplary costs or other-wise is now established by the
decision of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Sebastian
M. Hongray v. Union of India. When a person comes to us with the
complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with
mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and
legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion
may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT
Location:
10:34:29
appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim
by awarding suitable monetary compensation."
(emphasis supplied)
However, in the present case, the petitioner has not placed any
material on record to substantiate a case of 'mischief' or 'malicious
intent' as would warrant the grant of monetary compensation in-line
with the verdict of the Supreme Court in the above case. While in an
appropriate case, this court certainly has powers to award monetary
compensation for infraction of constitutional or other rights, in our
opinion, in the present case, there is nothing to make-out a case of
mischief or malice; and consequently, there is no basis for award of
any compensation. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh,
MLA (supra) is accordingly of no avail to the petitioner in the present
case.
11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petitioner's plea for
awarding compensation or damages in the present case; which plea we
accordingly reject.
12. No further directions are called for in the matter.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. Other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021/Ne
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNITA RAWAT
Location:
10:34:29
