Md. Jahid vs The State Of Bihar, Through Director ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 30 Patna

Patna High Court

Md. Jahid vs The State Of Bihar, Through Director ... on 9 January, 2026

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3077 of 2025
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura
     ======================================================
     Md. Jahid (Minor) under the guardianship of cousin brother Mohammad Navi
     Hussain/Parokar, Son of Md. Mukhtar, Resident of Village Sarpanch Ward
     No.- 08, P.S.- Puraini, District - Madhepura, Pincode - 852210
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner
                                          Versus
1.    The State of Bihar, through Director General of Police, Government of
      Bihar, Patna. Bihar
2.    The Director, Prosecution, Government of Bihar, Patna. Bihar
                                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner       :        Mr. Shashwat Kumar, Advocate
                                       Mr. Aman Alam, Advocate
                                       Mr. Amarnath Kumar, Advocate
     For the State            :        Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to A.G.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

      Date : 09-01-2026


                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

     AC to AG for the State of Bihar.

                     2. Pursuant to the order dated 08.01.2026 passed in

     this case, the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.'), namely, Mr.

     Rizwan Ahmad is present with the records.

                     3. This Court has also interacted with him in order to

     elicit certain material information. The I.O. has produced the

     case diary of this case and this Court has gone through the same

     with the assistance of learned AC to AG.
 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           2/14




                    4. The present writ application has been filed in the

       nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of the

       petitioner from the illegal detention of the respondents. It is the

       case of the petitioner that the I.O. in this case has arrested the

       petitioner in complete disregard to the powers of arrest and

       without following the established procedure of law. The

       petitioner alleges gross violation of his fundamental right as

       embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

                    5. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

             One Khushboo Praveen wife of Md. Amzad, resident of

       village Sapardah Ward No. 8, P.S.- Puraini, District- Madhepura

       lodged a first information report giving rise to Puraini P.S. Case

       No. 128 of 2025 dated 11.07.2025 registered under Sections

       126(2), 115(2), 76, 308(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya

       Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the '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 this petitioner who are all the co-

       villagers of the informant assaulted the prosecution side. It was
 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           3/14




       also alleged that the accused persons had taken away the silver

       chain and other ornaments.

                    6. In connection with the said occurrence, the

       petitioner's mother also lodged a counter case giving rise to

       Puraini P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025. The said

       case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections

       191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 76, 126(2), 109, 303(2), 352,

       351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023.

                    7. During investigation of the Puraini P.S. Case No.

       128 of 2025, the I.O. found that there was no sufficient material

       to proceed against ten named accused persons including this

       petitioner. One accused, namely, Md. Naushad was arrested. The

       investigation was supervised by the Inspector and upon

       instructions, the I.O. filed a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet

       No. 235 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 in which ten accused

       including this petitioner were shown in Column No. 12 as not

       chargesheeted accused. In another words, they were not sent up

       for trial. A reading of the chargesheet which is on the record

       would show that the same was filed on the direction of the

       Senior Police officer, while the arrested accused Md. Naushad

       was chargesheeted, the investigation was kept open against three
 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           4/14




       absconding accused, namely, (1) Md. Muktar, (2) Md. Zakir and

       (3) Md. Akhtar.

                    8. It appears that after about 25 days, the I.O. received

       a review note/supervision note from the office of the Deputy

       Inspector General of Police (in short 'DIG'), Koshi Range,

       Saharsa. It is evident that the supervision note was recorded by

       the DIG on his own on the request of the informant who had

       visited the office of the DIG with an application complaining

       that the Inspector of Police had wrongly exonerated ten named

       accused persons. The DIG has simply recorded in his note the

       allegations and then taking note of the statements of the

       witnesses, he issued a direction to the I.O. to proceed with the

       investigation of the case assuming that the allegations are true

       against the accused persons. He directed the Superintendent of

       Police, Madhepura to ensure further action and arrest all the

       remaining accused persons expeditiously.

                    9. A perusal of the case diary would show that the

       supervision note of the DIG was incorporated in the case diary

       on 25.09.2025 whereafter the I.O. straightway proceeded to

       conduct raid on the house of the accused persons. The case diary

       does not show that after the supervision note of the DIG, any

       instruction was obtained from the Superintendent of Police,
 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           5/14




       Madhepura. It does not show that the I.O., being fully aware of

       the fact that the ten accused persons have already been shown

       not sent up for trial, made any application in the court of learned

       Magistrate for permitting a further investigation. The I.O. could

       not lay his hand to any other material against the petitioner but

       on 23.10.2025, he arrested the present petitioner, described his

       age as 19 years and produced him before the court from where

       he was sent to jail. It appears that even at the time of his

       production before the learned Magistrate, the attention of the

       learned Magistrate was not drawn towards the fact that the

       petitioner was shown in the column of not chargesheeted

       accused in the chargesheet, therefore, once the chargesheet had

       been filed in the court, it was incumbent upon the I.O. to file an

       application seeking further investigation of the case if at all any

       material had come against the petitioner. Even the learned

       Magistrate did not look into these aspects of the matter and

       straightway in a mechanical manner sent the petitioner behind

       the bars.

                    10. The petitioner approached this Court by filing this

       writ application and informed this Court on 24.11.2025 in

       course of hearing that the petitioner is a juvenile as per his date

       of birth certificate i.e. the registration card of the Bihar School
 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026
                                           6/14




       Examination Board showing his date of birth as 01.01.2010. The

       petitioner complained that despite the fact that he is a juvenile,

       the learned Magistrate did not assess his age at the time of

       sending him behind the bars and in complete breach of the

       provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

       Children) Act, 2015, the petitioner was languishing in jail. On

       24.11.2025

, this Court noticed the submissions and asked the

State to file a counter affidavit duly sworn by the I.O. who had

effected the arrest of the petitioner. In the meantime, this Court

observed that "it will be open to the Jurisdictional Magistrate to

take corrective measures after considering the date of birth

certificate of the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner is

aged below 18 years, it will be incumbent upon the

Jurisdictional Magistrate to send him to the concerned Juvenile

Justice Board for assessment of age and considering his date of

birth certificate as per the Bihar School Examination Board, he

would be kept in an observation home and not in jail with

adults."

11. This Court has been informed at this stage that, in

fact, after coming to know the claim of the petitioner that he was

a juvenile, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate had vide his Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

order dated 21.11.2025 referred him for assessment of age to the

Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura.

12. Be that as it may, the report subsequently received

vide Letter No. 13 dated 07.01.2026 from the office of the

Superintendent of Police, Madhepura shows that the petitioner

has been declared juvenile aged about 15 years 06 months and

08 days on the date of occurrence.

13. In the aforementioned factual background, a

question has arisen for consideration in the present case as to

how the petitioner could have been arrested on 23.10.2025 when

he was not chargesheeted in the case and, in fact, in the

Chargesheet No. 235, he was shown one amongst the ten

accused persons who were not chargesheeted/sent up for trial.

We have already taken note of the fact that during investigation,

sufficient materials were not found against the petitioner to send

him to trial and after the supervision note of the DIG, the I.O.

had not collected any other and further material against the

petitioner. All that he did after receipt of the supervision note of

the DIG was that he conducted a raid and ultimately arrested the

petitioner from his house on 23.10.2025.

14. Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned AC to AG for the State

has submitted before this Court that, in fact, during his own Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

interaction with the I.O. he could not satisfy himself with the

kind of answers given to him and it appears on perusal of the

records which have been placed before him by the I.O. that the

sole reason for the arrest of the petitioner is the supervision note

of the DIG, Koshi Range, Saharsa.

15. We ourselves obtained the case diary which has

been brought by the I.O. and perused the same. We have found

that after receipt of the supervision note from the DIG, Koshi

Range, no instruction from the Superintendent of Police,

Madhepura has been received/recorded in the case diary. The

I.O. himself decided to arrest the accused-petitioner.

16. Learned AC to AG has submitted that in this case,

the DIG, Koshi Range, Saharsa, if at all was of the view that the

case requires further investigation, he should have directed the

I.O. to file an appropriate application in the court of the learned

Magistrate seeking permission because in this case, a

chargesheet had already been filed and the court had taken

cognizance thereof.

17. Learned AC to AG could not place before this

Court any material to show that the I.O. had collected any other

material to justify the arrest of the petitioner and/or that he could

have, in the facts of the present case, effected arrest of the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

petitioner without obtaining permission from the court for

further investigation.

18. 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.

19. Even the learned 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.

20. We have come to a conclusion that it is a case of

unlawful arrest of the petitioner and in such a circumstance, this

Court being a Constitutional Court cannot remain a mute

spectator. There are catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

Supreme Court in which not only unlawful arrest of a citizen has

been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but has also

awarded adequate compensation for illegal arrest and unlawful

detention of the petitioner.

21. Reference in this regard may be made to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati

Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and

Others reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960. In the said case, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of

contravention of fundamental rights of a citizen made the

following observations:-

"...... award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort...."

22. In the case of Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs. State of

Bihar and Others reported in 2025 (6) BLJ 52, this Court has

observed in paragraphs '27', '28' and '29' as under:-

"27. In the case of Rudal Sah Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in AIR 1983 SC 1086 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

while dealing with a case of unlawful detention in jail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"...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."

28. In the case of Pankaj Kumar Sharma Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6215, a learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has 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 learned 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.

29. 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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

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 has attained finality as the same has not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019."

23. In view of the admitted factual position and the law

being clear on this issue, we direct that the petitioner shall be

released forthwith by the Juvenile Justice Board from the

observation home/children's home and in this regard appropriate

release order shall be issued by the Juvenile Justice Board,

Madhepura forthwith.

24. 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.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

25. We find that the petitioner has been compelled to

approach this Court by filing a writ application of Habeas Corpus.

He/his family has incurred expenses in contesting the litigation

which were imposed upon them due to misuse of power by the

police official.

26. We, therefore, award a cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees

Fifteen Thousand) to the petitioner which shall also be paid by the

State within the same period.

27. It is well settled in law that when the State is saddled

with cost and compensation because of misuse of power by an

executive, such cost and compensation must be realized 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 was subject matter of challenge

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 003566/2019,

however, the same has not been interfered with and the view is

based on the earlier views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which

have been duly discussed.

28. 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 Patna High Court CR. WJC No.3077 of 2025 dt.09-01-2026

which would come in course of the inquiry proceeding and realize

the cost and the compensation amount from the erring officials.

The cost and compensation amount which will be paid to the

petitioner shall be realized from the erring officials after

completion of inquiry, within a period of six months from the date

of receipt/communication of a copy of this order.

29. This writ application stands allowed to the extent

indicated hereinabove.

30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

learned Principal District Judge, Madhepura, the Juvenile Justice

Board, Madhepura and the Director General of Police, Bihar for

compliance.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

(Ritesh Kumar, J) lekhi/-Vinita/-

AFR/NAFR                  AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date            09.01.2026
Transmission Date         09.01.2026