“Present Case Is An Eye Opener”- Gujarat HC Grants Compensation Of ₹1 Lakh To Convict Wrongfully Detained For 3 Years
The Gujarat High Court has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to a convict who was wrongfully detained for almost three years. The Court said that such a case is an eye opener.
The aforesaid convict had filed an application seeking regular bail through jail.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice M.R. Mengdey said, “The present case is an eye opener. … Considering the plight of the applicant, who has remained in jail despite the order of this Court due to the negligence on the part of the jail authorities, though he has already released yesterday, we are inclined to grant compensation for his illegal incarceration in the jail for almost three years. The applicant is aged about 27 years and he has already undergone, as per the jail remarks, more than 5 years. Hence, in the interest of justice and in order to see that the applicant is appropriately compensated for the negligence of the jail authorities, due to which he was constrained to remain in jail, we are directing the State to grant him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac).”
The Bench directed that the compensation shall be paid within a period of 14 days.
APP Ronak Raval appeared on behalf of the State i.e., the respondent.
In this case, a convict had filed an application for regular bail and such application was filed by him which was forwarded to the Registry of the Court vide communication written by the Deputy Superintendent of Ahmedabad Central Jail. The counsel for the applicant-convict invited attention of the Court to the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application (for suspension of sentence) and submitted that the Court, after passing a comprehensive order, had already released the applicant on regular bail by suspending his sentence under the provision of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC.).
The matter was ordered to be listed and the APP was directed to take necessary instructions as to why the applicant was still incarcerated in jail despite the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Court. The Registry of the Court was also directed to give the details with regard to communication of the order releasing the applicant on regular bail.
The High Court in the above context discovered that despite a previous order granting bail in 2020, the applicant remained incarcerated due to the negligence of jail authorities who failed to implement the release order.
The Court also noted, “The Secretary, DLSA, with a view to find out the economic condition of the accused, may take help of the Probation Officers or the Para Legal Volunteers to prepare a report on the socio-economic conditions of the inmate which may be placed before the concerned Court with a request to relax the conditions of bail/surety.”
Furthermore, the Court directed that in cases where the under trial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in an appropriate case, the court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties.
“… if the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant of bail, the concerned Court may suo moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification / relaxation, and one of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety”, ordered the Court.
The Court observed that the Apex Court is still examining the matter however, the aforesaid directions are issued only for welfare of the prisoners/convicts who have obtained bail but are not released.
“It appears that the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), who is assigned such duty to identify the cases, has also failed to point out the order to the jail authorities. Looking to the seriousness of the issue, we deem it proper to direct all the DLSAs to undertake necessary exercise and collect the data of the under trial prisoners/ convicts, in whose favour the orders are passed releasing them on bail but are not released. The DLSA shall collect the reasons for their not having been released either for want of surety or non-execution of the jail bonds or for any other reason”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter on October 18, 2023.
Cause Title- Chandanji @ Gato Chhanaji Thakor v. State of Gujarat
