Patna High Court Slams Police For 2.5-Month Unlawful Detention Of Juvenile, Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation
The Patna High Court last week awarded a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to a juvenile who was unlawfully arrested by the Bihar Police. The Court termed the act as a gross violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.A division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ritesh Kumar noted that the arrest was made in complete disregard of the...
The Patna High Court last week awarded a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- to a juvenile who was unlawfully arrested by the Bihar Police. The Court termed the act as a gross violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ritesh Kumar noted that the arrest was made in complete disregard of the established procedure of law, merely on the dictates of a Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), despite the fact that the juvenile had been previously exonerated in the chargesheet.
The High Court also directed that the compensation amount and the litigation cost of ₹15,000 must be paid by the State. However, it added that the cost should be recovered from the salaries of the erring police officials who are found responsible after an administrative inquiry.
Briefly put, a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner (a Juvenile) seeking release from illegal detention. The petitioner was initally named in an FIR regarding a land dispute and assault.
However, during the initial investigation, the IO found insufficient material against ten accused persons, including the petitioner. Consequently, a Chargesheet was filed on September 1, 2025, in which the petitioner was listed as an accused but not charged and thus he was not sent up for trial.
However, the informant then approached the DIG, Koshi Range, Saharsa, complaining about the exoneration of the ten accused persons, including the petitioner-juvenile.
The DIG, in a supervision note, directed the I.O. to proceed with the investigatio, assuming that the allegations are true and instructed that the remaining accused be arrested.
The supervision note of the DIG was incorporated in the case diary and then, the IO straightway proceeded to conduct raid on the house of the accused person and he arrested the present petitioner, described his age as 19 years and produced him before the court from where he was sent to jail.
In fact, even at the time of his production before the Magistrate, his attention was not drawn towards the fact that the petitioner was shown in the column of not chargesheeted in the case.
Even the concerned Magistrate did not look into these aspects of the matter and, straightaway, in a mechanical manner, sent the petitioner behind bars.
Aggrieved by this series of acts, the petitioner moved the instant habeas corpus petition before the HC.
High Court's observations
The bench took a strong exception to the modus operandi of the police. It noted that once a chargesheet had been filed showing the petitioner as not sent up for trial, the IO could not have arrested him without moving an application before the Magistrate for further investigation.
The Court observed:
“...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”
The High Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the role of the Jurisdictional Magistrate in this case. It noted that when the petitioner was produced, the Magistrate failed to notice that he was listed as 'not chargesheeted' in the earlier report.
Furthermore, it added that despite the petitioner being a juvenile (later confirmed by the Juvenile Justice Board to be 15 years, 06 months, and 08 days old at the time of the occurrence), the Magistrate sent him to jail instead of an observation home as he acted in a mechanical manner.
The Court lamented that “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”.
Against this backdrop, the HC directed that the petitioner be released forthwith by the Juvenile Justice Board from the observation home/children's home, and in this regard, an appropriate release order shall be issued by the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura, forthwith.
The Court ordered the State to pay ₹5 Lakhs as compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered by the young boy within one month. Additionally, ₹15,000 was awarded to him as litigation costs.
The Court also directed the competent authority/the Director General of Police, Bihar, to institute an inquiry into the matter on the administrative side, take a suitable view based on the materials that may come to light in the course of the inquiry, and recover 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”, the Court ordered.
Advocates Shashwat Kumar, Aman Alam and Amarnath Kumar appeared for the petitioner
Case title - Md. Jahid (Minor) vs State of Bihar
Citation :