The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 1. Pratima Das, aged about 30 years, D/o- Bishnu Charan Das, Advocate, Orissa High Court, Cuttack, permanently residing At- Pradhan Sahi, PO/PS- Chowdwar, Dist- Cuttack -Versus- …Petitioner 1. State of Orissa, represented through its Secretary to Govt. in Home Department, Secretariat Building, Sachivalay Marg, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda. 2. D.S. Kuttey, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, at present DIG Central Range, Cuttack. 3. R.K. Sharma, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, AT/PO/Dist- Jagatsinghpur, at present DIG, Berhampur Range, DIG Office, AT/PO- Berhampur, Dist- Ganjam. 4. Bichitrananda Samal, S/o- Late Manmohan Samal, the then SI of Police, Raghunathpur PS, Dist- Jagatsinghpur, permanent address of Mouza- Govindpur, PS- Dhenkanal Sadar, Dist- Dhenkanal. 5. Pradeep Kumar Panda, Inspector of Police, S/o- Narasingh Panda, permanent address of Mouza- Behera Sahi, PS- Nayapali, Dist- Khurda. W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 1 of 8 6. Sanjay Kumar, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police, AT/PO/Dist- Sambalpur. 7. Manas Ranjan Garnaik, the then OIC, permanent address of Mouza- Balipata, P.S.- Chhendipada, Dist- Angul. 8. Niranjan Mishra, S/o- Basudev Mishra, IIC in Jamankira, permanent Address of Mouza- Balarampur, PS- Bhawanipatna, Dist- Kalahandi. …Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case: For the Petitioner For Opposite Parties : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate Mr. J. Katikia, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 15.01.2025 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking imposition of exemplary cost on the State of Odisha and direction for payment of compensation for W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 2 of 8 infringing the petitioner’s fundamental right of liberty by abusing the process of law. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that because of illegal action of the officials of the State, the petitioner had to remain in judicial custody for two years three months and five days, after her arrest, because of which she suffered humiliation, harassment and deprivation of maintaining her livelihood. 2.1. It is the petitioner’s case that she is a lawyer by profession. On 10.08.2008, the petitioner had attended a meeting to discuss the problems of evictees of industrialization held in Nagbhusan Bhawan, Bhubaneswar which was attended by prominent social activists, educationalists, lawyers, journalists etc. One American Research Scholar and Educationist David Pugh was also present in the said meeting and after meeting was over, Mr. Pugh had requested the petitioner to accompany him to Kalinga Nagar area where fourteen tribal were killed on 02.01.2006 due to police firing. While returning from Kalinga Nagar in a car, Police gave a signal to stop the vehicle, but the driver of the vehicle speeded up the car despite repeated requests of the petitioner and Mr. Pugh. The vehicle was later W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 3 of 8 intercepted by the Police on chase at different place whereafter they were taken to a nearby Inspection Bungalow. They were interrogated and the driver of the vehicle was also interrogated in a separate room, till midnight. It is the petitioner’s case that the interrogation was in the absence of any lady police official. An FIR was registered vide G.R. Case No.514 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 121/121-A/124-A of the IPC read with Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the court of the SDJM, Jagatsinghpur. The petitioner was neither communicated the grounds of arrest nor she was represented by a lawyer on 13.08.2008 when she was first produced before the SDJM, Jagatsinghpur. The said David Pugh and the driver were set at liberty. 2.2. The petitioner was falsely implicated in another case and was remanded to Kuchinda Jail in the District of Sambalpur in connection with Jamankira PS Case No.93 of 2005 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 396/307/324/121-A/120-B and 149 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. A charge sheet was W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 4 of 8 submitted against as many as 24 accused persons including the petitioner. 2.3.
Decision
It is the petitioner’s case in the writ petition that she was no way connected in the said criminal offences registered in 2005 as then the petitioner was a regular student of final year law decree in the Law College, Cuttack. The petitioner remained in jail custody in Kuchinda Jail of Sambalpur District from 27.09.2008 to 17.07.2009 whereafter she was again brought to Alipingal Jail, Jagatsinghpur for trial in CT No.127/34 of 2009 before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Jagatsinghpur. The petitioner, however, was acquitted on 31.07.2010 by a judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jagatsinghpur. The petitioner was again brought to Kuchinda Jail on 08.08.2010 and later she was acquitted in ST No.14/2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No.347/2005 on 17.11.2010. 3. In the background of the abovenoted facts, the petitioner claims that though in none of the above criminal cases (CT No.127/34 of 2009 and ST No.14 of 2010), the prosecution was able to substantiate its case, she had to remain in jail custody for two years three months and W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 5 of 8 five days. This is the brief background in which the petitioner claims payment of compensation. 4. Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the decisions in case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Odisha (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610; Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J&K and others, (1985) 4 SCC 677; Shyam Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and another (1983) 4 SCC 141. He has submitted that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner that she belonged to a Maoist organization or had taken part or solicited any contribution for the said organization. He submits that it was a case of malicious prosecution in which the petitioner had to remain in custody for two years three months and five days at the prime age of her career. He has argued that the highhanded action of the police officer by putting the petitioner under handcuffs deserves to be condemned by this Court and the petitioner be held entitled for compensation. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Odisha asserting that the petitioner’s custody cannot be said to be W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 6 of 8 unlawful as she was under judicial custody under the orders of the competent court. It has been stated that the present writ petition filed several years after the petitioner’s arrest seeking compensation on the ground of arrest being illegal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. 6. We are of the considered view after having perused the writ petition that no detention of the petitioner for the period in question can be said to be unauthorized/illegal. She was arrested and remanded to jail under the orders of the concerned Court. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2011 only after her acquittal, making allegation against misbehavior by the Police during her interrogation and handcuffing. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had raised such issue soon after her arrest. The petitioner herself claims to be a lawyer practicing in High Court. It is presumed that she was knowing well her constitutional rights at the time of her arrest. 7. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the present writ petition filed more than three years after the petitioner’s arrest for award of compensation. The decisions of the Supreme Court relied on W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 7 of 8 by the petitioner are not at all applicable in the present set of facts and circumstances. 8. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which stands dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice Savitri Ratho, J. I agree. (Savitri Ratho) Judge S.K. Guin/PA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Jan-2025 15:09:52 W.P.(C) No.30284 of 2011 Page 8 of 8