1982 (5) TMI 197 - SC - Indian Laws

Judicial Action on Prolonged Detention: Release of Detained Prisoners & Compensation Consideration

Veena Sethi Versus State of Bihar and Ors.

The Court addressed issues related to judicial action on letters by public-spirited individuals, illegal detention of prisoners with unsound minds, lack ... - Issues Involved:1. Judicial action on letters by public-spirited individuals for enforcement of basic human rights.2. Illegal detention of prisoners with unsound minds.3. Lack of adequate institutions for the treatment of mentally sick prisoners.4. Specific cases of prisoners detained for extended periods without justification.5. Compliance with Section 428 of the CrPC 1973 regarding under-trial imprisonment.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Judicial Action on Letters by Public-Spirited Individuals:The Court addressed criticism regarding its practice of taking judicial action based on letters from public-spirited individuals and organizations. The Court defended this practice, emphasizing its role in protecting basic human rights of weaker community sections. The Court cited the case initiated by a letter from the Free Legal Aid Committee, Hazaribagh, which highlighted the illegal detention of prisoners in Hazaribagh Central Jail for decades. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition and issued a notice to the State of Bihar to ascertain facts regarding these prisoners.2. Illegal Detention of Prisoners with Unsound Minds:The Court found that several prisoners, including Sadal Chamar, Khedu Bhattacharya, Mohamadin, Kali Singh, Ambika Lal, and Jagannath Mahto, were still of unsound mind as per the latest examination by Dr. A.K. Prasad. The Court could not order their release due to their mental condition and the lack of someone to take care of them. The Court criticized the practice of detaining mentally sick individuals in jail due to inadequate institutions for their treatment. The Court directed the Superintendent of Hazaribagh Central Jail to have these prisoners examined every six months and submit reports to the District Judge, who would order their release if they regained sanity.3. Lack of Adequate Institutions for the Treatment of Mentally Sick Prisoners:The Court highlighted the inadequacy of institutions for treating mentally sick prisoners in Bihar, mentioning that the only institution, Mansik Arogayashala Kanke, was overcrowded. The Court criticized the practice of sending mentally ill individuals to jail for safe custody and urged the State Government to establish more institutions for their treatment.4. Specific Cases of Prisoners Detained for Extended Periods Without Justification:- Gomia Ho: Convicted in 1945 and found sane in 1966, but remained in jail until 1982 due to administrative negligence. The Court quashed the charge under Section 309 IPC and ordered his immediate release with funds for his journey and maintenance.- Bhondua Kurmi: Acquitted in 1956 but detained due to insanity. Declared sane in 1961 but remained in jail until 1982 due to bureaucratic delays. The Court ordered his immediate release with necessary funds.- Hiralal Gope: Remanded in 1963 and declared sane in 1982. The Court quashed the charge under Section 302 IPC and ordered his release with necessary funds.- Raghunandan Gope: Detained in 1950 and declared sane in 1982. The Court quashed the charge under Section 302 IPC and ordered his release with necessary funds.- Francis Purti: Acquitted in 1968 but detained due to insanity. Declared sane in 1972 but remained in jail until 1982. The Court ordered his immediate release with necessary funds.- Gulam Jileni: Detained in 1968 under a reception order and declared sane in 1972 but remained in jail until 1982. The Court canceled the reception order and ordered his release with necessary funds.- Kamla Singh: Acquitted in 1954 but detained due to insanity. Declared sane in 1979 but remained in jail until 1982. The Court ordered his immediate release with necessary funds.- Hira Lal: Detained in 1948 and declared sane in 1981. The Court quashed the charge under Section 302 IPC and ordered his release with necessary funds.5. Compliance with Section 428 of the CrPC 1973:The Court directed the State Government to drop pending cases against the prisoners who had been in jail for over 25 years, as it would be purely academic to pursue these cases. The Court emphasized that the period of under-trial imprisonment should be taken into account for computing the sentence period, and the maximum imprisonment should not exceed 14 years even in life imprisonment cases.Conclusion:The Court adjourned the writ petition to consider whether the prisoners are entitled to compensation from the State Government for their illegal detention in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. The next hearing was scheduled for 26th July 1982.